Octopus Overlords

Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days


Edited the title to make it accurate.

So there are a couple of things in there that I like (streamlining the FDA drug approval process) and a few I don't get -

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Don't we already have a glut of domestic energy? Won't his lower energy prices even more and hose up the same energy economy he wants to grow?

The judicial appointments suck of course, but more than anything the obstructionism on Garland being rewarded what really burns me.

Take In less
Spend a shit load more
Discourage international trade
Compound the costs of climate change

Profit!

Cut taxes and increase spending! What can possibly go wrong?

So his first item is a constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

Reading that article, it is now my dearest wish that he and his party go to war with each other and absolutely nothing gets done while they turn the presidency into a reality tv show.

geezer wrote:
The judicial appointments suck of course, but more than anything the obstructionism on Garland being rewarded what really burns me.

And is the main reason that, after a lifetime of voting the issues rather than personalities or parties, I will not push the button next to an [R] again.

Kraken wrote:Cut taxes and increase spending! What can possibly go wrong?

And he loves to talk about the "out of control" debt load the country is under.

geezer wrote:So there are a couple of things in there that I like (streamlining the FDA drug approval process) and a few I don't get -

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Don't we already have a glut of domestic energy? Won't his lower energy prices even more and hose up the same energy economy he wants to grow?

The judicial appointments suck of course, but more than anything the obstructionism on Garland being rewarded what really burns me.

The government can make it easier to do those things but with the current prices no company is going to do them anyway unless they make financial sense. We have enough resources available now but the costs of producing them is more than the current market will bear. So doubt you see much movement there. Allowing them to do something doesn't mean anything will be done.

GreenGoo wrote:So his first item is a constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

No, his first is proposing an amendment. He'll succeed at that one with flying colors. Hell, he can propose an amendment requiring orange spray-tan in the White House for all I care. Good thing he didn't say anything about passing an amendment.

Kraken wrote:Cut taxes and increase spending! What can possibly go wrong?

Actually, infrastructure spending is one of the best economic money multipliers for the economy. Tax cuts have a smaller effect, but still have one. I do think that most of his infrastructure initiatives will have short term economic benefits only (and be harmful in the long term, especially to our natural resources and the environment) , as will the tax cuts), but I do expect some positive economic effects.

Of course, his trade initiatives are likely to drive some serious inflation which could cancel everything out and bring back stagflation...

Pyperkub wrote:

Kraken wrote:Cut taxes and increase spending! What can possibly go wrong?

Actually, infrastructure spending is one of the best economic money multipliers for the economy. Tax cuts have a smaller effect, but still have one. I do think that most of his infrastructure initiatives will have short term economic benefits only (and be harmful in the long term, especially to our natural resources and the environment) , as will the tax cuts), but I do expect some positive economic effects.

Of course, his trade initiatives are likely to drive some serious inflation which could cancel everything out and bring back stagflation...

Actually, with his federal hiring freeze we'll not only be cutting taxes, we'll be cutting away the ability to collect them. I doubt anyone at the IRS will want to stay knowing they have more work to look forward to and less manpower to do it with.

Given that his budget plan has already been revealed to massively balloon our debt I wonder - Whatever happened to the Tea Party? Aren't they supposed to be assailing the President about the debt and deficit?

I'm interested in what he's going to do about the Iran nuclear agreement. He can't walk that back without the assistance of our allies, Russia and China. Our allies won't help with new sanctions, especially since he seems intent on not supporting them, Russia and Iran are joined at the hip in Syria, and China isn't going to like being categorized as a currency manipulator. So how does he get any new sanctions to stop Iran? Or does he plan on a war?

Grifman wrote:I'm interested in what he's going to do about the Iran nuclear agreement. He can't walk that back without the assistance of our allies, Russia and China. Our allies won't help with new sanctions, especially since he seems intent on not supporting them, Russia and Iran are joined at the hip in Syria, and China isn't going to like being categorized as a currency manipulator. So how does he get any new sanctions to stop Iran? Or does he plan on a war?

Putin is Trump's BFF, so that's not a problem, and he can just threaten Chyna the way the Obama administration did , by penalizing their companies if they don't go along with it. Except he'll do it a lot more bluntly, the way the mafia might force you to pay a protection fee after roughing you up first.

Defiant wrote:

Grifman wrote:I'm interested in what he's going to do about the Iran nuclear agreement. He can't walk that back without the assistance of our allies, Russia and China. Our allies won't help with new sanctions, especially since he seems intent on not supporting them, Russia and Iran are joined at the hip in Syria, and China isn't going to like being categorized as a currency manipulator. So how does he get any new sanctions to stop Iran? Or does he plan on a war?

Putin is Trump's BFF, so that's not a problem, and he can just threaten Chyna the way the Obama administration did , by penalizing their companies if they don't go along with it. Except he'll do it a lot more bluntly, the way the mafia might force you to pay a protection fee after roughing you up first.

I kind of think he may have some leverage with China. Give them the south China sea in exchange for trade concessions and limiting Russia/NK.

It means some work on relations with our old SEATO allies but may not involve breaking any treaties. Would suck for Taiwan and the Philippines, but I don't think they will matter much to Trump.

Pyperkub wrote:

Kraken wrote:Cut taxes and increase spending! What can possibly go wrong?

Actually, infrastructure spending is one of the best economic money multipliers for the economy. Tax cuts have a smaller effect, but still have one. I do think that most of his infrastructure initiatives will have short term economic benefits only (and be harmful in the long term, especially to our natural resources and the environment) , as will the tax cuts), but I do expect some positive economic effects.

Of course, his trade initiatives are likely to drive some serious inflation which could cancel everything out and bring back stagflation...

Increasing military spending concerns me more. We already flush too much money down that rathole. If you really believe that we need to spend even more there, find a way to pay for it. No, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, much less for additional spending.

Infrastructure, OTOH, is a genuine need, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it makes sense to borrow for that while interest rates are at historic lows. Assuming, that is, that the "infrastructure" isn't a giant goddam wall.

Kraken wrote: Infrastructure, OTOH, is a genuine need, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it makes sense to borrow for that while interest rates are at historic lows. Assuming, that is, that the "infrastructure" isn't a giant goddam wall.

Trump is talking about pushing all that infrastructure spending through Congress. Has he *met* Paul Ryan?

Ryan’s Budget Would Cut $5 Trillion in Spending Over a Decade

Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and a possible White House contender in 2016, laid out a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in spending over the next decade. He said it would bring federal spending and taxes into balance by 2024, through steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law.

Defense spending would increase. Domestic programs would be reduced to the lowest levels since modern government accounting.

Hilariously, last year I was anticipating a Rep in the WH and looking forward to the opportunity to show some of the right leaning people on this forum that I wasn't a partisan hack and was willing to judge a president on his merits, not his party.

But then this happened.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

I'm of two minds on term limits. I think in the end I fall on the side of against, only because I think that it's self-defeating to force a member out that is good at what they do, just because reasons. And maybe that's naive (believing that anyone in Congress can be good at what they do). I think I agree with Sen. McConnell, we already have term limits, we call them elections. If you want to fix those, instead propose an Amendment to outlaw gerrymandering shenanigans designed to protect incumbents.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

If I'm not mistaken, most of Obama's Administration had that freeze in place, and it was only lifted recently (at least at the DoD). I'm already in (indirectly), so ha-ha!

Trump's Contract on America wrote:THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

Why? I mean, I have no particular aversion to getting rid of bad regulations. But getting rid of existing regulations, just because? That's dumb.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

I have no objections at this time.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

What could go wrong? Incidentally, those are the actions that will likely trigger the market correction that will begin to evaporate my 401(k).

Trump's Contract on America wrote: FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

Too ambiguous to comment on.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Need more details. Like are we just going to tap all the reserves at once and go out in fossil fuel burning orgy? I feel like this was thrown in to convince people that there's going to be $50T worth of new jobs on Day One(tm). We obviously know that this is probably just marketing talk for "Frack Baby, Frack!" right?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

Surprisingly, I have no opinion on the Keystone Pipeline. And I would need to see a list of other "vital" energy infrastructure projects. Like, is fixing our shitty electrical grid on that agenda?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Christ on a cracker. Although I am open to the possibility that the UN isn't a particular efficient vehicle and that a significant portion of those payments are falling off the cart before it rumbles to its final destination.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

Ambiguous. I mean, currently they are all constitutional, no?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Fuck you and your party.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

So that I understand this correctly - the idea is that a city is identified as a Sanctuary City (who gets to decide? Christie? ), and as long as they have that designation, *all* federal funding is cut off to that city?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

This is non-specific. He references "2 million criminal illegal immigrants". Are these illegal immigrants that have committed crimes? Or are we just tagging all illegal immigrants with the label of "criminal" because being here illegally is a crime? He is careful to not really commit to anything other than to "begin" to do that. Probably a wise way to couch this one.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

At this point, isn't that "Earth"? What in the name of holy fuck is "extreme vetting"? Are there rubber gloves involved?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.

Holy Underpants. The answer to a crippling debt problem (assuming you perceive our current debt problem as crippling, which I don't) is to slash your revenue? What could go wrong? Companies can bring their money home and only pay 10%?!? They're paying 0% now. Why on earth would they do that? What does he define as a middle class family? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that it will be national numbers, and so my living in the NY-NJ-CT triangle will double fist me in the pooper?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:End The Offshoring Act.

Tariffs always work, right? There are never consequences to those.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:American Energy & Infrastructure Act.

I need more than a sentence, and I apologize in advance, but I don't believe you when you say that spending $1T is revenue neutral. Otherwise I have no problem with infrastructure development.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:School Choice And Education Opportunity Act.

Oy.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act.

Oy^2. Forcing people to self-insure with a risk pool of one through Health Savings Accounts is no way to address this nightmare.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.

Opinionless.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:End Illegal Immigration Act

That is legitimately delusional. How exactly is the USA going to pass a law with "the understanding" that Mexico is going to fully pay for it. That's never happening.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Restoring Community Safety Act

Color me skeptical.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Restoring National Security Act.

Color me skeptical. I mean, clearing ending sequestration helps me personally, but someone has to pay for all of this shit. And you are slashing revenue. Our hope is that companies are going to magically start paying 10% tax on money they don't have to?

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Clean up Corruption in Washington Act.

No details. This sounds like marketing horseshit.

That's legitimately as charitable as I can possibly be with this nonsense.

gilraen wrote:

Kraken wrote: Infrastructure, OTOH, is a genuine need, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it makes sense to borrow for that while interest rates are at historic lows. Assuming, that is, that the "infrastructure" isn't a giant goddam wall.

Trump is talking about pushing all that infrastructure spending through Congress. Has he *met* Paul Ryan?

Ryan’s Budget Would Cut $5 Trillion in Spending Over a Decade

Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and a possible White House contender in 2016, laid out a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in spending over the next decade. He said it would bring federal spending and taxes into balance by 2024, through steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law.

Defense spending would increase. Domestic programs would be reduced to the lowest levels since modern government accounting.

Two competing and confounding factors: (1) Trump isn't really a Republican, and a significant fraction of the party repudiated him -- there's going to be internecine warfare; but (2) OTOH Trump has shown only token interest in his own budget plan and can probably be convinced to go along with little Marco if little Marco knows what to kiss and how.

The Ryan budget is a disaster, but Trump is all about negotiation and personality. His politics are situational.

Kraken wrote:

gilraen wrote:

Kraken wrote: Infrastructure, OTOH, is a genuine need, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it makes sense to borrow for that while interest rates are at historic lows. Assuming, that is, that the "infrastructure" isn't a giant goddam wall.

Trump is talking about pushing all that infrastructure spending through Congress. Has he *met* Paul Ryan?

Ryan’s Budget Would Cut $5 Trillion in Spending Over a Decade

Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and a possible White House contender in 2016, laid out a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in spending over the next decade. He said it would bring federal spending and taxes into balance by 2024, through steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law.

Defense spending would increase. Domestic programs would be reduced to the lowest levels since modern government accounting.

Two competing and confounding factors: (1) Trump isn't really a Republican, and a significant fraction of the party repudiated him -- there's going to be internecine warfare; but (2) OTOH Trump has shown only token interest in his own budget plan and can probably be convinced to go along with little Marco if little Marco knows what to kiss and how.

The Ryan budget is a disaster, but Trump is all about negotiation and personality. His politics are situational.

So essentially Ryan just has to kiss ass and Trump will pass whatever Ryan wants?

raydude wrote:So essentially Ryan just has to kiss ass and Trump will pass whatever Ryan wants?

I suspect so. You don't think real policy is going to originate with Trump, do you?

Grifman wrote:

raydude wrote:So essentially Ryan just has to kiss ass and Trump will pass whatever Ryan wants?

I suspect so. You don't think real policy is going to originate with Trump, do you?

No I didn't. Just wanted it to be clear that even the Trump proposals we agree with, such as infrastructure spending, probably won't see the light of day once Ryan becomes the Trump-whisperer.

Wait, Ryan is Putin?!?

You are delusional thinking Ryan will have any power over Trump other than to eventually cut out the cancer by starting impeachment.

Yawn, wake me up in 100 days with a checklist of fail.

Hopefully this is satire.

Speculation begins on Trump's picks for Cabinet

If there's a silver lining, he didn't list "appoint a special prosecutor" in his list of first 100 days promises.

He also didn't say "Pull out of NATO", "Cancel alliances with South Korea and Japan" or call for revoking any of the constitutional amendments.

So... yay?

RunningMn9 wrote:Hopefully this is satire.

Speculation begins on Trump's picks for Cabinet

Still waiting to hear that Billy Bush will be the Trump White House Press Secretary.

Smoove_B wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Hopefully this is satire.

Speculation begins on Trump's picks for Cabinet

Still waiting to hear that Billy Bush will be the Trump White House Press Secretary.

If he's smart,he'll go with Kellyanne Conway.

I agree with much of what you wrote, so just a few points -

RunningMn9 wrote:

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

I'm of two minds on term limits. I think in the end I fall on the side of against, only because I think that it's self-defeating to force a member out that is good at what they do, just because reasons. And maybe that's naive (believing that anyone in Congress can be good at what they do). I think I agree with Sen. McConnell, we already have term limits, we call them elections. If you want to fix those, instead propose an Amendment to outlaw gerrymandering shenanigans designed to protect incumbents.

I come down on the side of term limits. Power is concentrated over time and too much power leads to corruption. I'm willing to risk inefficiencies to limit corruption. I'd say 3 terms for a Senator and 5 for the House. You could have a 36 year career in politics if you went House/Senate/President. More if you pulled off the Vice-President -> President play.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

Why? I mean, I have no particular aversion to getting rid of bad regulations. But getting rid of existing regulations, just because? That's dumb.

You needed more stress on how dumb this is. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO dumb.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Fuck you and your party.

I'm wiling to wait and see on this. Judges haven't always acted as their nominator's expected. Granted, I haven't seen the list of 20 judges.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

At this point, isn't that "Earth"? What in the name of holy fuck is "extreme vetting"? Are there rubber gloves involved?

And flashlights.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act.

Oy^2. Forcing people to self-insure with a risk pool of one through Health Savings Accounts is no way to address this nightmare.

Another one I'm willing to wait and see for details. I think Obamacare is fine, but if it's going to go away they had better replace it with something. It's going to take forever to implement, though.

Trump's Contract on America wrote:End Illegal Immigration Act

That is legitimately delusional. How exactly is the USA going to pass a law with "the understanding" that Mexico is going to fully pay for it. That's never happening.

I'm glad someone finally realized we could end it by passing a law.

I only went with the titles of all the Acts - I haven't seen any descriptions of them anywhere. Hard to go off of just a name for most of them. For instance, I'm not opposed to School Choice, but I need more than just a concept.

It will certainly be interesting to see what Congress does with all this. Even when one party has the full Congress and a President it likes, it usually devolves into internecine warfare. It would be somewhat amusing if they manage to get nothing done in the first year.

What's the theory on whether Trump will throw Christie a bone and give him a cabinet post? Perhaps AG?

stessier wrote:I come down on the side of term limits. Power is concentrated over time and too much power leads to corruption. I'm willing to risk inefficiencies to limit corruption. I'd say 3 terms for a Senator and 5 for the House. You could have a 36 year career in politics if you went House/Senate/President. More if you pulled off the Vice-President -> President play.

I can understand that, but the sense that I get from most people that are pro-term limits, they are pro-term limits for other people's elected officials. "That Harry Reid sucks man, there should be term limits to get him out of the Senate". Said by someone that lives no where near Nevada. Whether Harry Reid continues to represent the people of Nevada should be up to the people of Nevada, and not some arbitrary rule.

As an example, I work in NJ's 11th Congressional District. The representative for this District has been Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) since his election in 1994. He just won his 11th or 12th term I believe. By your rules, he would have been out after 2004. And here's where I have a problem with that. One of his duties in Congress is that he is the Chair on the Subcommittee on Defense (a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations). The #1 employer in NJ CD 11 (directly and indirectly) is the Department of Defense (whose budget is under the authority of the Subcommittee on Defense).

Now, Rep. Frelinghuysen and I don't see eye to eye on very much (although he generally used to be a fairly moderate Republican until the Party moved into obstruction mode and he followed suit). But. Rep. Frelinghuysen has been active politically in this district since the days after Vietnam (and his service in the US Army). His local and army background, coupled with his standing on the Subcommittee on Defense, is an incredibly strong ally when it comes to determining which military installations get BRAC'd. He is intimately familiar with what we do here and is in a position to advocate for why this base remains critical to the warfighter. Forcing him out of his position, simply because. That is senseless to me.

The people in this Congressional District deserve the representation that THEY want. Not be forced to choose someone else because some goddamn Pats fan says so.

I would love to oust Conyers and Stebenow without having to put an R in their place. But that's me and I am not part of the normal sample. I don't really have a strong opinion about Peters yet. My fear of a the R Congress forced me vote for Conyers this time around and I was exceptionally angry when I filled in that bubble. I desperately wanted to rebel.

I would also love to oust hated long standing congressional members across the US.

RunningMn9 wrote:

stessier wrote:I come down on the side of term limits. Power is concentrated over time and too much power leads to corruption. I'm willing to risk inefficiencies to limit corruption. I'd say 3 terms for a Senator and 5 for the House. You could have a 36 year career in politics if you went House/Senate/President. More if you pulled off the Vice-President -> President play.

I can understand that, but the sense that I get from most people that are pro-term limits, they are pro-term limits for other people's elected officials. "That Harry Reid sucks man, there should be term limits to get him out of the Senate". Said by someone that lives no where near Nevada. Whether Harry Reid continues to represent the people of Nevada should be up to the people of Nevada, and not some arbitrary rule.

As an example, I work in NJ's 11th Congressional District. The representative for this District has been Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) since his election in 1994. He just won his 11th or 12th term I believe. By your rules, he would have been out after 2004. And here's where I have a problem with that. One of his duties in Congress is that he is the Chair on the Subcommittee on Defense (a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations). The #1 employer in NJ CD 11 (directly and indirectly) is the Department of Defense (whose budget is under the authority of the Subcommittee on Defense).

Now, Rep. Frelinghuysen and I don't see eye to eye on very much (although he generally used to be a fairly moderate Republican until the Party moved into obstruction mode and he followed suit). But. Rep. Frelinghuysen has been active politically in this district since the days after Vietnam (and his service in the US Army). His local and army background, coupled with his standing on the Subcommittee on Defense, is an incredibly strong ally when it comes to determining which military installations get BRAC'd. He is intimately familiar with what we do here and is in a position to advocate for why this base remains critical to the warfighter. Forcing him out of his position, simply because. That is senseless to me.

I get that, and it's a strong argument.

From my position though, through that much service he has collected too much power. How familiar is he with the other districts that could be doing the work? Could they do it as well or better? Might it not help their economoies more than yours to get some of those contracts? Why should they have to languish for the next 50 years waiting for your guy to die so that their representatives can be heard?

His strength is undeniably good for your area, but it comes with a cost to others. Term limits would allow a fair amount of power while limiting how long it could be weilded. We force out Presidents because of it yet there are Senators and Representatives with nearly as much power who can serve indefinitely. It doesn't make sense.

The people in this Congressional District deserve the representation that THEY want. Not be forced to choose someone else because some goddamn Pats fan says so.

I'm totally for Commissioner term limits and impeachment if that helps.

stessier wrote:How familiar is he with the other districts that could be doing the work?

But that's not his job. His job is to advocate for the best interests of NJ CD 11. Do we need to have a class on how Congress works?

raydude wrote:What's the theory on whether Trump will throw Christie a bone and give him a cabinet post? Perhaps AG?

Sorry but I think Rudy has that locked up. He took down the Italian Mafia next up Clinton Mafia.

Christie will be Secretary of Dinner.

RunningMn9 wrote:

stessier wrote:How familiar is he with the other districts that could be doing the work?

But that's not his job. His job is to advocate for the best interests of NJ CD 11. Do we need to have a class on how Congress works?

I get it, which is why concentrate power is...well, unfair at best.

RunningMn9 wrote:

stessier wrote:How familiar is he with the other districts that could be doing the work?

But that's not his job. His job is to advocate for the best interests of NJ CD 11. Do we need to have a class on how Congress works?

Oh, I didn't realize the Chair on the Subcommittee on Defense just represents NJ CD 11.