Doomstead Diner Menu => Geopolitics => Topic started by: RE on December 02, 2016, 10:49:33 AM

Title: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 02, 2016, 10:49:33 AM
Now that the "election" is OVAH, we got at least 4 years of The Donald to deal with here.  I am kicking off this thread with the latest Newz, that His Trumpness has now tapped such Wall Street notables as Stephen Schwartzman and Jamie Dimon as his advisors on Jobs.  Yup, he's a real CHAMPION of J6P!  lol.

Fucking morons who voted for Trumpty-Dumpty will now get precisely what they deserve.  More ass-fucking from the .01%

RE


Trump Turns to Schwarzman, Dimon for White House Panel on Jobs
Toluse Olorunnipa

December 2, 2016 — 7:20 AM AKST
Updated on December 2, 2016 — 8:53 AM AKST

    Some advisers favor free-trade deals and donate to Democrats
    President-elect facing criticism for appointing billionaires

President-elect Donald Trump turned to some of Wall Street’s biggest names on Friday to create a panel of business leaders that will give him strategic advice on the economy after he takes office, including two financiers with deep Democratic roots.

Blackstone Group LP Chief Executive Officer Stephen A. Schwarzman will chair the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum, which will begin meeting with Trump in February, after his inauguration, according to a statement from his private-equity firm. JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon and BlackRock Inc. Chairman and CEO Laurence Fink, major donors to Democratic politicians, will also sit on the panel.

“This forum brings together CEOs and business leaders who know what it takes to create jobs and drive economic growth,” Trump said in a statement issued by Blackstone. “My administration is committed to drawing on private sector expertise and cutting the government red tape that is holding back our businesses from hiring, innovating, and expanding right here in America.”

Presidents traditionally turn to business leaders for advice on the economy. For example, President Barack Obama named CEOs from companies including Xerox Corp. and Dow Chemical Co. to an advisory committee on international trade, while Schwarzman has partnered with the current administration on efforts to hire veterans.
Dimon, Fink

Dimon, 60, has led JPMorgan since 2005. Unlike competitors, it remained profitable during the financial crisis. A self-described Democrat who has advocated liberal positions, he’s also the banking industry’s most prominent defender and an occasional critic of its regulators.

He was at one time rumored to be under consideration as Trump’s Treasury secretary. He did not endorse a candidate in the presidential election.

Fink, 64, has been critical of Trump in the past. He was once floated as a possible Treasury secretary under Obama or Hillary Clinton, had she defeated Trump.

Other panel members include General Motors Co. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra, Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove, Bob Iger of Walt Disney Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. President and CEO Doug McMillon, and former Boeing Co. Chairman Jim McNerney.

Trump has turned to business leaders, bankers and Wall Street executives to fill his cabinet, selecting former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Steven Mnuchin as his nominee for Treasury Secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross for Commerce Secretary.
‘Open Dialogue’

Barra said in a statement that her participation on the panel “offers us a seat at an important table where we can contribute to a constructive and open dialogue about key policy issues.”

At a rally in Cincinnati on Thursday, Trump said his administration would include “some of the greatest business people in the world,” brushing off criticism that he has appointed too many millionaires and billionaires.

“One of the networks said, why would he put on a billionaire at Commerce? Well, that’s because this guy knows how to make money, folks,” Trump told the crowd.

Trump said the business leaders he was selecting for his cabinet were “killers” who would help him implement a sweeping agenda of tax cuts and new trade deals.

Many of the business leaders serving on Trump’s panel support some of the trade deals Trump railed against as a candidate, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership that he says he will exit.

Other panel members include former General Electric Co. Chairman and CEO Jack Welch, Goldman Sachs’s lead independent director, Adebayo Ogunlesi, who is also chairman and managing partner of Global Infrastructure Partners, and Ginni Rometty, CEO of International Business Machines Corp.

Rometty wrote Trump a three-page letter on Nov. 14 outlining ideas that she said “can advance a national agenda in a time of profound change.” She defended IBM’s operations overseas, and allowed that “in the years ahead, there will be issues on which we agree, and issues on which we do not.”
Title: Trump’s Economic Plan: This Isn’t Going to Work
Post by: RE on December 03, 2016, 01:09:25 AM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/25/trumps-economic-plan-this-isnt-going-to-work/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/25/trumps-economic-plan-this-isnt-going-to-work/)

November 25, 2016
Trump’s Economic Plan: This Isn’t Going to Work

by Mike Whitney

Will Donald Trump be good for the US economy?

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Trump1.jpg)
The American people seem to think so. According to a recent survey taken by Gallup “Americans have relatively high expectations (of) the president-elect… Substantial majorities (upward of 60%) believe the Trump administration will improve the economy and create jobs. A slim majority (52%) say he’ll improve the healthcare system.”

Even more impressive, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index spiked to a 93.8 -high in November, signaling a significant improvement in overall consumer attitudes about the economy.

Analysts attribute this change in outlook to the recent presidential election which showed a marked-uptick in optimism “across all income and age subgroups across the country.”

“The initial reaction of consumers to Trump’s victory was to express greater optimism about their personal finances as well as improved prospects for the national economy,” said Richard Curtin, the survey’s chief economist.

So, people are not just giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, they genuinely think their economic situation is going to get better under the new president.

The results are particularly significant when we realize that the economy not only topped the list of important issues going into the November elections, but that also (according to a survey conducted by Edison Research) “Three in five voters said the country was seriously on the wrong track and about the same number said the economy was either not good or poor. Two-thirds said their personal financial situation was either worse or the same as it was four years ago. About one in three voters said they expected life to be worse for the next generation.”

In other words, the election was a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy, in which 60 percent of those surveyed, think was a failure. These results also suggest that, had Obama made any attempt to address wage stagnation, shrinking incomes, student debt, or widespread economic insecurity, Hillary Clinton would probably be president today. As it happens, the victory went to the anti-establishment outsider who promised a fundamental change in direction, Donald Trump.

This is particularly worth thinking about now that protests have broken out in cities across the country and liberals are accusing Trump supporters of voting for a racist. No, the majority of Trump supporters did not vote for a racist (surveys also show that a majority of these people support a way for undocumented immigrants to attain US citizenship) nor do the approve of the white nationalist movement. They voted for someone who they thought would change the economic policies that have been destructive to their interests. Trump won the election because he addressed the issues that matter to ordinary working people and refrained from such foolishness as running around with his hair on fire blaming the Russians for everything under the sky. Hillary Clinton got exactly what she deserved.

Now the question is: Can Trump deliver?

The question is not only important for the American people, but also for the Trump administration that figures its prospects for success depend largely on an economic revival. Steve Bannon, who is Trump’s chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won’t be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That’s why fixing the economy is Job 1.

Here’s a quote from Bannon:

    “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver…”we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”…

    “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.” (Ringside with Steve Bannon, Hollywood Reporter)

I don’t pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I’ve read in the newspapers and on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt political establishment and build a coalition that “will govern for 50 years”, he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy. That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue. In other words, he’s going to have to punt if he wants to govern.

Bannon is the main architect of Trump’s economic plan, a plan that has already earned broad public support, but a plan that won’t succeed unless it is drastically changed. Here’s why:

Trump’s economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.

As far as tax cuts, there are three main subsets:

1–The corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to drop from 35 percent to 15 percent.

2–A tax cut on the so-called “repatriation of funds”– which lowers the rate on roughly $2 trillion of cash that’s currently stashed overseas by uber-rich US businesses that have been evading US corporate taxes for years. Trump wants to give these tax dodgers a one-time “holiday” with a 10% penalty for companies that agree to bring their cash back to the US. Trump believes that the one-time tax break will increase business investment and employment in the US. Critics say the scheme will not work unless the economy strengthens and demand grows.

3–Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, “a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings.” (USA Today)

Here’s a brief summary from economist Dean Baker:

    “According to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, (Trump’s) tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion (close to 4 percent of GDP) over the course of the next decade. This tax cut plan would effectively add close to $800 billion to the annual deficit when it first takes effect, with the amount increasing over time……

    “According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of Trump’s tax cuts will go to the richest one percent of the population. The richest 0.1 percent will get tax cuts that average almost $1.5 million annually. The Trump tax cut is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Republican Party, and unfortunately many Democrats, of putting as much money as possible in the pockets of the rich.” (Republican deficit hawks abandon their religion, Smirking Chimp)

As you can see, most of the benefits from the proposed tax cuts go to the extremely rich. How does that fit with Trump’s campaign promise:

    “I am proposing an across-the-board income-tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans…The tax relief will be concentrated on the working and middle-class taxpayer. They will receive the biggest benefit – it won’t even be close.”

    The tax cuts look like a serious betrayal of Trump’s supporters. They also look like a misguided , short-term strategy that will derail Bannon’s plan for broad coalition based on a strong economic growth and rising wages. This latest iteration of “trickle down” economics will not help him achieve that goal.

    Unfortunately, the other parts of Trump’s economic plan are equally dismal. For example, Trump is determined to repeal many of the key provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the toothless bill that Congress passed in order to prevent another financial meltdown. At present, Texas congressman, Jeb Hensarling — an outspoken critic of Dodd-Frank appears to be the frontrunner in the competition for US Treasury Secretary. Hensarling, who just last week said “Dodd-Frank was a grave mistake”, is pushing his own Wall Street-friendly Financial CHOICE act, which would replace the bill with a “pro-growth, pro-consumer” alternative” that would protect the banks from ‘growth-strangling regulation.” (Housingwire)

Is that what we really need, more laws to protect the banks?? Check out this clip from Fortune Magazine:

    “Hensarling wants to put the market in charge. His view is that encouraging banks to hold lots of capital (as Dodd-Frank does) goes far enough by itself to shore up the system, making banks far safer than the law’s dense web of stress tests, complex limits on trading, and banning of mortgages and credit cards deemed “abusive” by regulators. Now that Republicans control Congress and the White House, it’s highly possible that the Hensarling manifesto, or a large part of it, will become law…

    “I will not rest until Dodd-Frank is ripped out by its roots and tossed on the trash bin of history,” (Hensarling) declared in a recent speech. The centerpiece of the CHOICE act is a provision that would exempt banks from the more restrictive Dodd-Frank regulations…” (This Congressman Could Turn the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms Upside Down, Fortune)

The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on “abusive mortgages” — just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn’t it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump’s chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure?

What, in God’s name, is Trump trying to achieve? On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making. What sense does that make?

Here’s a little more background on Trump’s crusade against regulation. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

    “Donald Trump has tapped a longtime critic of heavy regulation to flesh out his new administration’s plans for remaking the financial rule book, including the potential dismantling of much of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.

    Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002 to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders. Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect’s transition team charged with recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed on the matter.

    Mr. Trump has detailed little about his views on financial regulation beyond his vow to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.” (Donald Trump’s Point Man on Financial Regulation: A Former Regulator Who Favors a Light Touch, Wall Street Journal)

Trump also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which recently imposed a $100 million fine on Wells Fargo for using bank employees to create more than 2 million unauthorized accounts to meet sales quotas. The action was applauded by consumer groups across the board which is why Trump will make every effort to defang the watchdog agency. The president-elect appears to be gearing up to eliminate any rule that impairs Wall Street’s ability to rake in bigger profits, whether it puts the American people at risk or not.

So how does this square with Steve Bannon’s comments about coalition building and desire for a stronger economy?

I can’t figure it out, after all, Bannon sounds like a true believer, a no-nonsense, red-blooded, blue collar working guy who hates the Wall Street, the Republican establishment and the mainstream media. What’s not to like about that?

But how does Bannon’s hardscrabble upbringing, his commitment to tea party uprising, and his take-no-prisoners combativeness, jibe with these flagrant tax giveaways, this anti-worker deregulation, and a fiscal policy that only benefits the uber wealthy? I don’t get it??

In an extremely persuasive interview with Buzzfeed News, Bannon disparages the new strain of “Ayn Rand” capitalism that objectifies people and turns them into commodities. He expands on this idea by giving a brief synopsis of the financial crisis that many will find galvanizing. Here’s a clip:

    “The 2008 crisis, … which, by the way, I don’t think we’ve come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks. …
    And one of the reasons is that we’ve never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008. Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that’s one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we’re seeing as the tea party…

    The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here’s why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable. …

    In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on. … (and) Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out the elites. …

    It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.” (This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World, Buzzfeed News)

Repeat: “They are going to be held accountable.”

Bravo! He wants to lock them up. He wants the bankers to be held accountable and locked up! Who doesn’t want that? Every working slob in America wants that. This is why Bannon has attracted such a loyal following; it’s because his analysis of the financial crisis and its aftermath are “dead on”. The American people know they were ripped off, know that Wall Street is infested with crooks and parasites, and know that the country is governed by a corrupt and unaccountable oligarchy of racketeers.

Bannon has tapped into powerful feelings of frustration and rage, and he’s built a thriving movement on top of them. But where’s the beef? His economic policy just doesn’t deliver the goods. Bannon is talking the talk, but he’s not walking the walk.

The tax cuts don’t deliver for working people and neither does deregulation. So what about the third part of Trump’s economic plan, the fiscal stimulus component?

Bannon says he’s the driving force behind the $1 trillion infrastructure development program. Unfortunately, the program is little more than a scam. Let me explain:

    Typically, when people think about fiscal stimulus, they imagine expensive Keynesian “shovel ready” infrastructure projects with lots of well-paid government workers building bridges, roads, rapid transit systems and even schools. That’s not what this is. According to economist Jared Bernstein:

    “Instead of just allocating the needed resources as in the traditional approach, they propose to “offer some $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who want to finance toll roads, toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams.”

    Since the plan depends on private investors, it can only fund projects that spin off user fees and are profitable. Rural roads, water systems, and public schools don’t fall into that category. Neither does public transit, which fails on the profitable criterion (it depends on public subsidies.” (Trump’s misguided flirtation with Keynesianism, Politico)

This isn’t going to work. It’s completely self defeating. This is just more of the same, more handouts to big business. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is to get money in the hands of the people who will spend it fast, rev up the economy, boost growth, generate more demand and get the economy out of its eight-year-long funk. The rebuilding of infrastructure is secondary, in fact, it doesn’t even matter. What matters is getting money circulating in the perennially-moribund economy. Caspice?

Here’s more on the Trump infrastructure boondoggle from an article in the Washington Post:

    “Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. … There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for … expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects…

    Second, as a result of the above, Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there’s no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. …

    Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects.” (Trump’s big infrastructure plan? It’s a trap. Washington Post)

These so called “public-private partnerships” are just another way for big business to suck money out of the government. They don’t help the economy, not really, and they don’t help workers either. If Bannon is serious about building his coalition on the back of a robust economy, there’s an easier way to do it. First get rid of the corporate ideologues and supply side radicals whose theories never work. Then hire a team of reputable economists who have first-hand experience implementing thorny stimulus programs of this magnitude. (Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson, Jack Rasmus)

Then start with the low-hanging fruit, that is, put money into already-running programs that will produce immediate results. For example, in James Galbraith’s epic article “No Return to Normal” the economist recommends increasing Social Security payments. Think about that. It’s a complete no-brainer. The people who live on Social Security spend every dime they get every month, which means that — if their payments go up by, let’s say, $200 or more per month– then all that dough goes straight into the economy which is what fiscal stimulus is all about. Also, increase food stamp funding, lower the Medicare age of eligibility, and rehire a portion of the 500,000 federal workers who lost their jobs in the Crash of ’08. These policies will put money into the economy immediately, boosting growth, increasing wages, and strengthening the prospects for whatever political party happens to be in office.

The point is, fiscal stimulus doesn’t have to be a boondoggle and it doesn’t require “shovel ready” jobs. All that’s needed is a competent team of economic advisors who know what the hell they’re doing and the political will to get the job done. Trump’s economic plan doesn’t do that, all it does is slightly improve GDP while trillions of dollars are transferred to the bank accounts of behemoth corporations and Wall Street cronies.

If Bannon is serious about fixing the economy and rebuilding the Republican party, my advice to him would be: Give Galbraith a call.
Join the debate on Facebook

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
Title: Trump Names Carl Icahn as Adviser on Regulatory Overhaul
Post by: RE on December 22, 2016, 03:34:49 AM
Carl Icahn!  King of the Leveraged Buyout!  Now chief REGULATORY Advisor to Trumpty-Dumpty!  :o

Talk about putting the Foxes in charge of the Henhouse!  ::)

(https://bwufundraising.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/fox_henhouse_12.jpg)

Yup, The Donald is a real Man of the People alright.  The RICH PEOPLE!

RE

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-name-icahn-as-adviser-on-regulatory-overhaul-1482354552 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-name-icahn-as-adviser-on-regulatory-overhaul-1482354552)

Trump Names Carl Icahn as Adviser on Regulatory Overhaul

(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-RI230_TRUMPI_IM_20161221151655.jpg)

Billionaire investor already has helped with search for new head of Securities and Exchange Commission
Businessmen Donald Trump and Carl Icahn attended a 1988 boxing match between Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks in Atlantic City, N.J. ENLARGE
Businessmen Donald Trump and Carl Icahn attended a 1988 boxing match between Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks in Atlantic City, N.J. Photo: WireImage/Getty Images
By David Benoit
Updated Dec. 21, 2016 5:46 p.m. ET
196 COMMENTS

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn on Wednesday was named special adviser to the president on overhauling federal regulations.

Mr. Icahn, who has spent the past four decades battling big companies as an activist investor, already has been wielding influence in President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team. He is playing a central role in selecting the next chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, people familiar with the matter said. Interested candidates have reached out to him, and he is interviewing others at the request of Mr. Trump, the people said.

The 80-year-old has played a similar role in identifying Mr. Trump’s choices for other important posts. Mr. Icahn, who controls an oil refiner and has spent months berating the Environmental Protection Agency over a rule he says hurts the industry, helped Mr. Trump vet candidates to run the EPA.

He weighed in enthusiastically as Mr. Trump considered whether to nominate Steven Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross to run the Treasury and Commerce departments, respectively. Both men were picked for the jobs.

    Trump’s New Appointments Shake Up Trade, Regulation

    Donald Trump selected billionaire investor Carl Icahn and economist Peter Navarro for his economic team, both of whom could jolt trade and regulation.

    Click to Read Story

    Senate Democrats Campaign Against Treasury Pick

    Senate Democrats have launched a campaign against Steven Mnuchin, Trump's pick for Treasury secretary, suggesting his confirmation hearing may be contentious.

    Click to Read Story

    Advertisement

    Donald Trump Meets With Boeing, Lockheed CEOs

    Donald Trump met with the CEOs of the nation’s two largest defense contractors, two weeks after he publicly berated the cost of some of their projects.

    Click to Read Story

    Choice for Ambassador to Israel Gets Mixed Reaction

    The nomination of pro-settlement lawyer David Friedman as the Trump’s administration’s new envoy to Israel is winning praise from some in Israel but concern advocates of a two-state solution.

    Click to Read Story

    For President-Elect Trump, Loyalty Comes Second

    Donald Trump is forging a transactional path to the White House, assembling a cabinet based more on pragmatism than loyalty.


The position isn’t an official government job; Mr. Icahn won’t get paid and won’t have to give up his current business dealings. Yet it is the latest example of a quintessential outsider assuming power as Mr. Trump assembles his cabinet secretaries and advisers

Messrs. Trump and Icahn say U.S. businesses have been overregulated in the Obama administration, which they argue is causing them to hold back on investments and is slowing the economy. Mr. Icahn will now be a key player in Mr. Trump’s efforts to loosen the regulatory reins.

“I’m involved with Donald where he wants me to be—I believe he respects my views and I think he listens to me,” Mr. Icahn said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “What Trump is trying to achieve is to show business in a lot of this country they aren’t going to be ruined by absurd regulation by bureaucrats.”

In a statement, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Icahn’s negotiating skills and said “his help on the strangling regulations that our country is faced with will be invaluable.”

Since the 1970s, Mr. Icahn has been an outspoken critic of many corporate boards, arguing the corporate-governance system is broken and impedes growth. He is a pioneer among activist shareholders, who buy up stakes and push boards to change direction by selling assets, firing the CEO or buying back shares.

An influential role shaping federal regulations marks a new chapter in Mr. Icahn’s influence on Wall Street. It would have been largely unimaginable in his early career as a brash outsider who picked fights with corporate titans. He was derided for years as a corporate raider. He was so feared by companies that they sometimes offered to pay him to go away, a 1980s tactic dubbed “greenmail” that was later restricted.
Read More on Capital Journal

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for Trump transition news.

    Skeptic of Trade With China Tapped to Lead New Council
    Trump Pick of Zinke for Interior a Boon to Montana Senator’s Re-Election Bid
    How Rex Tillerson, a Late Entry to Be Secretary of State, Got Donald Trump’s Nod
    Trump’s Pledge to Loosen Regulations on Businesses Is a Heavy Lift
    Agency Has Ruled Trump Will Be in Violation of Washington Hotel Lease, Democrats Say

In recent years, Mr. Icahn’s views on shareholder activism have gone mainstream. These days, he generally manages to shake up corporate boards with less drama. He has taken stakes in giants such as Apple Inc., Xerox Corp., American International Group Inc. and eBay Inc.

As a prominent activist, Mr. Icahn has much at stake in the next SEC chairman. Activist fights are tightly controlled by the SEC. The agency issues rules that affect activists’ ability to do business and uses its enforcement arm to police their tactics. Activists and their corporate opponents regularly complain about the other side to the SEC.

The successor to current SEC Chairman Mary Jo White could have to decide whether activists will be forced to disclose their stakes more quickly after acquiring them and whether those disclosures need to include derivatives such as some stock options. Business groups that argue activists put their own short-term gains ahead of companies’ long-term futures urge such changes.
How Trump’s Election Predictions Came True
0:00 / 0:00
President-elect Donald Trump made eye-popping predictions during the campaign that were ultimately proven correct in America's 2016 presidential election. Here's a look back at the outsider candidate's crystal ball. Photo: AP

Historically, Mr. Icahn had largely steered clear of Washington. But he was an early backer of Mr. Trump and advised him throughout the campaign. He urged Mr. Trump to support efforts to let U.S. corporations bring home offshore cash and to end the carried-interest tax break that benefits many on Wall Street.

Messrs. Trump and Icahn’s relationship dates back to their time running Atlantic City casinos. The pair sat together for the occasional big boxing match. Mr. Icahn’s wife, Gail, is on Mr. Trump’s inauguration committee.

Mr. Icahn is one of a handful of Wall Street powerbrokers who regularly get calls from the president-elect about their opinions on various topics.

Mr. Icahn, who calls himself a centrist, has said he wants to give back to the country. He often talks about how he rose from modest means to one of the nation’s wealthiest men. He has rejected criticism that he is only advising Mr. Trump to advance his own interests.
Billionaire activist-investor Carl Icahn speaks on the FOX Business Network in 2014. ENLARGE
Billionaire activist-investor Carl Icahn speaks on the FOX Business Network in 2014. Photo: Reuters

The Democratic National Committee reacted quickly to the announcement, criticizing Mr. Icahn as conflicted given his investments and business dealings.

“It looks like Trump isn’t the only billionaire set to profit off of the presidency,” spokesman Eric Walker said in a statement.

Mr. Icahn has at times compared his helping Mr. Trump to turnaround companies with activism, where he benefits but also makes other shareholders billions. He has said other shareholders don’t complain about his own gains.

Shares of Mr. Icahn’s CVR Energy Inc., an oil refiner, have climbed 67% since the election, boosting the value of his investment by more than $600 million.

When Mr. Trump said early on in his campaign that he would consider Mr. Icahn as a potential Treasury secretary pick, Mr. Icahn declined the offer, joking he doesn’t get up early enough for the job.

Famed for late-night negotiations with CEOs, Mr. Icahn has ribbed Mr. Trump about his own nocturnal habits. “I told him when you’re done tweeting, call me,” Mr. Icahn said. “I’ll be up.”

Write to David Benoit at david.benoit@wsj.com
Title: Artists & Musicians SNUB Trumpty-Dumpty
Post by: RE on December 23, 2016, 03:45:59 AM
This is HILARIOUS.  The Donald so far has not been able to get a SINGLE act to come perform at his inauguration, despite having more money than God.  Not even Celine Dion would do it, and she is as righty as you get!  :laugh:

Performing at the inauguration will be the Trump Family Singers.  ::)

What a fucking CLOWN!

(https://memecrunch.com/image/578b91d64aa21847a5000003.jpg?w=399)

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/12/22/trump-claims-a-list-celebrities-want-to-come-to-his-inauguration/?utm_term=.2b8f490229ce (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/12/22/trump-claims-a-list-celebrities-want-to-come-to-his-inauguration/?utm_term=.2b8f490229ce)

Trump claims A-list celebrities want to come to his inauguration
By Emily Heil December 22 at 11:24 PM

President-elect Donald Trump, left, and Kanye West pose for a picture in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. (AP/Seth Wenig)

Here’s President-elect Donald Trump’s explanation-slash-spin for the dearth of celebrities so far slated for his inauguration: he doesn’t want them there. Take that, Katy Perry!

A Trump tweet on Thursday night seemed to be a defense against the drumroll of recent reports about celebrities who have turned down gigs to perform or otherwise be involved in his inauguration next month — an event that under the Obama administration had become a star-studded extravaganza. (Heck, even former president George W. Bush got then-chart-topping Ricky Martin and Jessica Simpson in 2001.)

“The so-called ‘A’ list celebrities are all wanting tixs to the inauguration, but look what they did for Hillary,” Trump wrote. “NOTHING. I want the PEOPLE!”

A spokesman for the inaugural committee did not immediately return an email asking to which celebrities Trump was referring in his tweet.

Basically, he’s saying that all the famous folk — and he’s implying that they’re the same musicians and actors who campaigned in droves for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton — are simply begging to come, but he doesn’t want them there. Instead, he wants Real Folks.

Reliable Source newsletter

Daily news on D.C. VIPs and the city’s hottest gossip

Pretty convenient. So far, the only solo performer confirmed for official events on inauguration weekend is sixteen-year-old “America’s Got Talent” contestant Jackie Evancho, who is booked to sing the national anthem at the swearing-in ceremony. (And though they’re not exactly tabloid faves, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is on deck, and so are the Rockettes.)

Others have turned down Team Trump, including multi-Grammy winning producer David Foster, who would have brought his deep roster of notable musician friends to the table. Acclaimed tenor Andrea Bocelli had been mentioned as a possible inauguration performer, although he faced a backlash on Twitter from fans vowing to #boycottbocelli for the move.

But in an echo of Trump’s Thursday tweet, the Trump campaign insisted they weren’t actually turned down at all. In a CNBC interview, Presidential Inauguration Committee head Thomas Barrack said it was the other way around — that Bocelli had volunteered, but, “Donald said, ‘You don’t need to.’”

Some “talent” signed up for events surrounding the inauguration: country act Big& Rich are headlining a concert put on by the Recording Industry Association of America, and Toby Keith and Alabama are set to perform at an “Opening Day” bash Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., are throwing the day after the swearing-in.

And more names of varying wattage are expected — the inaugural committee on Wednesday announced a “Make America Great Again” concert on the Mall similar to events held prior to previous inaugurals. Someone has got to take the stage.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 23, 2016, 08:14:21 AM
Narcissist in chief.

It's not even funny anymore.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on December 24, 2016, 01:47:25 PM
OMG, is Whitney saying that Trump and Bannon didn't mean what they said during the election, and that they are actually on the side of the billionaires, just like the Republicans and Democrats have always been?  Whatever next ? - I expect after a very short romance, Putin will do something that Trump doesn't like, and then rapprochement will be over and Cold War 2 will be on in earnest.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on December 24, 2016, 02:05:35 PM
(https://4threvolutionarywar.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hahaha.jpg?w=453&h=399)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 24, 2016, 03:29:38 PM
It's not even funny anymore.

Oh come on.  It gets funnier by the day!  :icon_mrgreen:

(http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/120915donalttrump.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 24, 2016, 03:44:40 PM
It's not even funny anymore.

Oh come on.  It gets funnier by the day!  :icon_mrgreen:

(http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/120915donalttrump.jpg)

RE

Well, that's the thing with scary clowns.  Sometimes they look like clowns who are funny and sometimes they just look very scary.  Mostly, this clown looks very scary to me at the moment.  I hope a metiorite will come down upon him and his running mate while they are visiting some big patch of desert, so no one else gets hurt.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 24, 2016, 03:55:45 PM
I hope a metiorite will come down upon him and his running mate while they are visiting some big patch of desert, so no one else gets hurt.

A bolt of lightning is very targeted.  I will raise my Mighty Louisville Slugger to the Heavens with my still good Left Arm I can get above the shoulder level on inauguration day and try to bring one down.

(http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/thor-lightning-art.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 24, 2016, 03:59:18 PM
The world will thank you.  Or, rather, the lighting -- which would be "an act of god" and nothing that should interest ... well, you know who.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on December 25, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
I hope a metiorite will come down upon him and his running mate while they are visiting some big patch of desert, so no one else gets hurt.

A bolt of lightning is very targeted.  I will raise my Mighty Louisville Slugger to the Heavens with my still good Left Arm I can get above the shoulder level on inauguration day and try to bring one down.

(http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/thor-lightning-art.jpg)

RE

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fastroengine.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F06%2Flightning_strike.jpg&f=1)
Title: Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 01:11:29 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/)


Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial

The science of man-made global warming has only grown more conclusive. So why have Republicans become less convinced it’s real over the past decade and a half?

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/12/RTX2V9HR/lead_960.jpg?1482508147)


Lucas Jackson / Reuters

    Clare Foran Dec 25, 2016 Politics

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

Denial of the broad scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming could become a guiding principle of Donald Trump’s presidential administration. Though it’s difficult to pin down exactly what Trump thinks about climate change, he has a well-established track record of skepticism and denial. He has called global warming a “hoax,” insisted while campaigning for the Republican nomination that he’s “not a big believer in man-made climate change,” and recently suggested that “nobody really knows” if climate change exists. Trump also plans to nominate Republicans to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department who have expressed skepticism toward the scientific agreement on human-caused global warming.
Latest from Politics

Donald Trump's Hot-and-Cold Bromance With Vladimir Putin

Indeed, Trump’s election is a triumph of climate denial, and will elevate him to the top of a Republican Party where prominent elected officials have publicly rejected the climate consensus. It’s not that the presidential election was a referendum on global warming. Climate change barely came up during the presidential debates, and voters rated the environment as a far less pressing concern than issues like the economy, terrorism, and health care. But that relative lack of concern signals that voters have not prioritized action on climate change, if they want any action taken at all. Trump’s victory sends a message that failing to embrace climate science still isn’t disqualifying for a presidential candidate, even as scientists warn that the devastating consequences of global warming are under way and expected to intensify in the years ahead.

If Trump fails to take climate change seriously, the federal government may do little to address the threat of a warming planet in the next four years. A presidential administration hostile to climate science also threatens to deepen, or at the very least prolong, the skepticism that already exists in American political life. “If the Trump administration continues to push the false claim that global warming is a hoax, not happening, not human caused, or not a serious problem, I’d expect many conservative Republican voters to follow their lead,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication.
A presidential administration hostile to climate science also threatens to deepen the skepticism that already exists in American political life.

The entrenchment of climate-science denial is one of the ways the United States appears to be exceptional relative to the rest of the world. A comparative 2015 study of nine conservative political parties in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain concluded that “the U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” Meanwhile, Americans were least likely to agree that climate change is largely the result of human activity in a 2014 survey of 20 countries, including China, India, Australia, and Great Britain.

Scientific reality does not seem to have escaped the distorting influence of political polarization in the United States. A paper published in Environment earlier this year suggests that as the Tea Party pushed the Republican Party further to the political right, it helped solidify skepticism of man-made climate change within the GOP. That happened as the Tea Party incorporated “anti-environmentalism and climate-change denial into its agenda,” the authors write, and subsequently became part of a broader “denial countermovement” made up of fossil-fuel companies as well as conservative think tanks and media outlets.

As the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats has widened, so has the partisan divide over climate change. Scientific evidence that human activity is the leading cause of global warming has continued to accumulate in recent years, and the evidence for man-made climate change is now overwhelming. In spite of that, Republicans are slightly less convinced than they were a decade and a half ago that the Earth is getting warmer as a result of human activity. Democrats have moved in the opposite direction and become more likely to say that man-made climate change is real. This year, Gallup found that while 85 percent of Democrats believe human activity has lead to higher temperatures, only 38 percent of Republicans agree.

In a deeply divided country, adopting views on climate change that conflict with scientific evidence can actually be a rational choice. Liberals and conservatives frequently spend time with like-minded individuals, and people across the political spectrum may have a better chance of fitting in if they embrace shared partisan beliefs—regardless of whether those beliefs contradict scientific fact. This helps explain why highly educated Republicans are actually more likely to reject climate science. Yale University professor Dan Kahan put it this way in a 2012 Nature article:

    For members of the public, being right or wrong about climate-change science will have no impact. Nothing they do as individual consumers or individual voters will meaningfully affect the risks posed by climate change. Yet the impact of taking a position that conflicts with their cultural group could be disastrous. … Positions on climate change have come to signify the kind of person one is. People whose beliefs are at odds with those of the people with whom they share their basic cultural commitments risk being labelled as weird and obnoxious in the eyes of those on whom they depend for social and financial support.

The complexity of climate science may have made it easier for global warming to get caught up in partisan politics as well. Voters look to the positions adopted by their political party as a kind of mental shortcut when deciding what to make of complicated subjects such as climate change, according to research from Cynthia Rugeley of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and John David Gerlach of Western Carolina University. That means that if Trump continues to voice climate skepticism after taking office, he could further cement skepticism among conservative voters. “I think it will reinforce climate denial among those who already doubt its existence. To that extent, yes, it will deepen denial,” Rugeley said in an interview.

The power and influence of corporations relative to the government might also help explain why skepticism has thrived. An ideological preference for free markets may make some politicians and voters in the United States more sympathetic to arguments that environmental regulations will hurt the private sector—even if those arguments are used to dismiss climate science. According to Matthew Paterson, a professor of international politics at the University of Manchester in England, skepticism over government intervention might help explain why climate skepticism also seems relatively entrenched in Anglo-Saxon countries such as Great Britain and Australia, though to lesser degrees there than in the United States. Fossil-fuel interests, in particular, have managed to inject doubt into the climate debate in the United States, Paterson argues, by “funding deniers, and anti-climate politicians, and giving them a public voice.”

The more voters are skeptical of man-made climate change, the easier it may be for politicians to justify inaction. It’s impossible to predict what Trump will do in office, but he already appears poised to dismantle President Obama’s agenda to combat climate change. He also seems willing to fill his administration with individuals who have cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Trump wants Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, to serve as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt recently co-wrote an article claiming that scientists “disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Trump’s choice to run the Energy Department, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, has claimed “the science is not settled” on climate change. And his pick to lead the Interior Department is Republican Representative Ryan Zinke of Montana, who has reportedly said that global warming is “not a hoax, but it’s not proven science either.”

Despite significant pockets of skepticism and denial, particularly among conservative Republicans, there are plenty of Americans across the political spectrum who believe that man-made climate change exists. Gallup recently found that a majority of Americans believe human activity is causing global warming, and feel worried about the rise in temperatures. Concern over climate change increased among Democrats and Republicans from 2015 to 2016 with 40 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats reporting concern this year. If that concern continues to increase, skepticism may decline over time among American voters.

Whether skepticism dissipates or intensifies may depend in part on the actions of the Trump administration over the next four years. If Trump makes climate science and policy a high-profile target, he might provoke a backlash among moderate Republicans who do believe global warming is a serious problem. But skepticism within the GOP could intensify if Trump’s administration publicly misrepresents climate science and dismisses efforts to combat global warming as an expensive waste of time. If that happens, Democrats and liberal activists will counterattack, a dynamic that might cause partisan attitudes to harden further. That could leave the political debate over global warming more fractured than ever.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 08:24:08 AM
Most Americans disagree with their congressional representative on climate change
https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-disagree-with-their-congressional-representative-on-climate-change-95dc0eee7b8f#.xja2rcvyh (https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-disagree-with-their-congressional-representative-on-climate-change-95dc0eee7b8f#.xja2rcvyh)

Quote
"59 percent of the Republican House caucus and 70 percent of Republicans in the Senate deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and humans are the main cause."

Quote
"The general public is way ahead of Congress — a recent poll found that 76 percent of Americans said they believed global climate change is occurring, including 59 percent of Republicans. And 67 percent support President Obama’s plan to regulate power plants to cut carbon emissions."


Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change deniers
http://grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-a-third-of-congress-members-are-climate-change-deniers/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-a-third-of-congress-members-are-climate-change-deniers/)

___________________________________________


Republicans in particular, and the US Congress more generally, are officially out to lunch with this issue.  The American people, however, are far more statistically likely to agree with what climate science indicates.   I don't think the Congress is as stupid as they pretend to be. They know what's up. But they are beholden to fossil fuel interests for campaign finance, etc.  I just wish Congress would stop embarrassing themselves and the nation.  (Not that we aren't about as embarrassed as we can be by having an orange clown as president, etc.)

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on December 26, 2016, 10:01:24 AM
What's that quote, something like "it's hard to get a man to believe something that's contrary to his job depending on it?"  Something like that.  I think that's what explains this phenomenon of climate change deniers.  Accepting AGW means that we have to change BAU.  The corporations depend on fossil fuels to continue doing business.  They are the vested interest, and therefor they control the dialogue. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 10:24:04 AM
What's that quote, something like "it's hard to get a man to believe something that's contrary to his job depending on it?"  Something like that.  I think that's what explains this phenomenon of climate change deniers.  Accepting AGW means that we have to change BAU.  The corporations depend on fossil fuels to continue doing business.  They are the vested interest, and therefor they control the dialogue.

Upton Sinclair.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a0/a5/5a/a0a55a6d380a1c59ba7ab5ff45490c43.jpg)

Basically, Exxon-Mobil will fund anyone who is a climate change denier.  So politicians who wanna get elected become deniers.  The money alone explains the difference between the general population percentages and the percentage you find in CONgress.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on December 26, 2016, 11:51:47 AM
What's that quote, something like "it's hard to get a man to believe something that's contrary to his job depending on it?"  Something like that.  I think that's what explains this phenomenon of climate change deniers.  Accepting AGW means that we have to change BAU.  The corporations depend on fossil fuels to continue doing business.  They are the vested interest, and therefor they control the dialogue.

Upton Sinclair.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a0/a5/5a/a0a55a6d380a1c59ba7ab5ff45490c43.jpg)

Basically, Exxon-Mobil will fund anyone who is a climate change denier.  So politicians who wanna get elected become deniers.  The money alone explains the difference between the general population percentages and the percentage you find in CONgress.

RE

This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 12:08:32 PM
This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.

This might be true in some cases, but my experience dealing with the Christian Fundy Righties is they genuinely do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.  The owner of the gym I came up here to work with originally was like this.  A fairly intelligent guy, but he simply would not accept that Homo Sap was causing climate change.  To him this was all a conspiracy dreamed up by liberals to halt the great engine of capitalism.

IMHO, the energy industry simply selects for these people and they really don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe burning fossil fuels is causing it.  Righties tend to be willfully stupid people this way.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on December 26, 2016, 12:42:02 PM
This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.

This might be true in some cases, but my experience dealing with the Christian Fundy Righties is they genuinely do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.  The owner of the gym I came up here to work with originally was like this.  A fairly intelligent guy, but he simply would not accept that Homo Sap was causing climate change.  To him this was all a conspiracy dreamed up by liberals to halt the great engine of capitalism.

IMHO, the energy industry simply selects for these people and they really don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe burning fossil fuels is causing it.  Righties tend to be willfully stupid people this way.

RE

See how well it works!  They have you totality bamboozled LOL.

There is a difference between the Christian Fundy Righties who do the electing and those who get elected.  It is easier for a voter to be ignorant than a politician running for office.  Simply running exposes a politician to opposing views and evidence which an ignorant voter does not have to deal with.  A politician at a minimum is exposed to their own ignorance simply because lies must come from their own mouth. 

There was no reason for your fairy intelligent gym owner not to remain as ignorant as he wished because there was nothing in it for him to become enlightened.  A politician running for office is in an entirely different environment where ignorance must be consciously cultivated.  Becoming less ignorant is in a politicians best interest.  The conclusion must be then that they learn facts which break their ignorance but since they pander their votes from ignorant masses they continue to pretend ignorance. 

I'm sure it is true for you RE as it is for me that when we have a need to know something we learn it very fast.  Learning to prevail in a debate against a climate change advocate is more than enough incentive for a Republican politician to learn true facts concerning climate change even if they don't want to.

All Republicans are fools some of the time, and some Republicans are fools all the time, but not all Republicans are fools all of the time.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 01:17:45 PM
This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.

This might be true in some cases, but my experience dealing with the Christian Fundy Righties is they genuinely do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.  The owner of the gym I came up here to work with originally was like this.  A fairly intelligent guy, but he simply would not accept that Homo Sap was causing climate change.  To him this was all a conspiracy dreamed up by liberals to halt the great engine of capitalism.

IMHO, the energy industry simply selects for these people and they really don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe burning fossil fuels is causing it.  Righties tend to be willfully stupid people this way.

RE

See how well it works!  They have you totality bamboozled LOL.

There is a difference between the Christian Fundy Righties who do the electing and those who get elected.  It is easier for a voter to be ignorant than a politician running for office.  Simply running exposes a politician to opposing views and evidence which an ignorant voter does not have to deal with.  A politician at a minimum is exposed to their own ignorance simply because lies must come from their own mouth. 

There was no reason for your fairy intelligent gym owner not to remain as ignorant as he wished because there was nothing in it for him to become enlightened.  A politician running for office is in an entirely different environment where ignorance must be consciously cultivated.  Becoming less ignorant is in a politicians best interest.  The conclusion must be then that they learn facts which break their ignorance but since they pander their votes from ignorant masses they continue to pretend ignorance. 

I'm sure it is true for you RE as it is for me that when we have a need to know something we learn it very fast.  Learning to prevail in a debate against a climate change advocate is more than enough incentive for a Republican politician to learn true facts concerning climate change even if they don't want to.

All Republicans are fools some of the time, and some Republicans are fools all the time, but not all Republicans are fools all of the time.

I'm still not sold KD.  I think politicians are just as willfully ignorant as the people who vote for them.  I don't think Trumpty-Dumpty secretly believes in Climate Change and is just faking not believing it.  I think he truly doesn't believe it because he doesn't WANT to believe it.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on December 26, 2016, 03:37:57 PM
This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.

This might be true in some cases, but my experience dealing with the Christian Fundy Righties is they genuinely do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.  The owner of the gym I came up here to work with originally was like this.  A fairly intelligent guy, but he simply would not accept that Homo Sap was causing climate change.  To him this was all a conspiracy dreamed up by liberals to halt the great engine of capitalism.

IMHO, the energy industry simply selects for these people and they really don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe burning fossil fuels is causing it.  Righties tend to be willfully stupid people this way.

RE

See how well it works!  They have you totality bamboozled LOL.

There is a difference between the Christian Fundy Righties who do the electing and those who get elected.  It is easier for a voter to be ignorant than a politician running for office.  Simply running exposes a politician to opposing views and evidence which an ignorant voter does not have to deal with.  A politician at a minimum is exposed to their own ignorance simply because lies must come from their own mouth. 

There was no reason for your fairy intelligent gym owner not to remain as ignorant as he wished because there was nothing in it for him to become enlightened.  A politician running for office is in an entirely different environment where ignorance must be consciously cultivated.  Becoming less ignorant is in a politicians best interest.  The conclusion must be then that they learn facts which break their ignorance but since they pander their votes from ignorant masses they continue to pretend ignorance. 

I'm sure it is true for you RE as it is for me that when we have a need to know something we learn it very fast.  Learning to prevail in a debate against a climate change advocate is more than enough incentive for a Republican politician to learn true facts concerning climate change even if they don't want to.

All Republicans are fools some of the time, and some Republicans are fools all the time, but not all Republicans are fools all of the time.

I'm still not sold KD.  I think politicians are just as willfully ignorant as the people who vote for them.  I don't think Trumpty-Dumpty secretly believes in Climate Change and is just faking not believing it.  I think he truly doesn't believe it because he doesn't WANT to believe it.

RE

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief.  It is a matter of scientific fact.  Not WANTING to believe it is not the same thing as not believing.  Trumpty-Dumpty is a master at manipulating people and part of having his particular talent for manipulation is to be able to put on a front and twist facts in any way necessary to get the behavior from other people he wants to see.  To know that honesty does not matter and only results do is to be in the Trump zone.  Manipulation may be Trump's only talent, though that I doubt, but it is a talent he is a total master of.  We assume too easily that because he is out of touch with reality as we know it, that he must be totally out to touch with reality to the point of madness because only madness can make somebody think that anything they want to be true will be true.  That is childish.  Trump is not a child.

Part of being an American President is the ability to lie with a straight face and sound convincing.  A man who has trouble lying well will never be elected.  The people won't have it.  From that perspective Trump by  far was the more qualified candidate.

Who was the most dishonest of them all?

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefamouspeople.com%2Fprofiles%2Fthumbs%2Fdiogenes-of-sinope-9.jpg&f=1)

Diogenies himself.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 05:55:33 PM
This has to be the most quoted quote among Kollapsnicks but among politicians denial and lack of belief are not the same thing.  Not understanding something because your job depends on it requires a modicum of effort.  Saying you don't understand something when you really do understand it requires no effort to a compulsive liar and politics attracts plenty of compulsive liars.  They do well since the rest of us are easily fooled.

This is not a simple semantic difference because the rest of us waste far too much time wondering why Republicans don't understand climate change.  Republicans understand it just fine but they lie and say they don't understand it because ignorance carries less stigma than being a flagrant selfish asshole does.  Pretending they don't understand when we really know they can understand things as well as we can is also easier for us to do because the alternative of confrontation is unpalatable.

This might be true in some cases, but my experience dealing with the Christian Fundy Righties is they genuinely do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.  The owner of the gym I came up here to work with originally was like this.  A fairly intelligent guy, but he simply would not accept that Homo Sap was causing climate change.  To him this was all a conspiracy dreamed up by liberals to halt the great engine of capitalism.

IMHO, the energy industry simply selects for these people and they really don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe burning fossil fuels is causing it.  Righties tend to be willfully stupid people this way.

RE

See how well it works!  They have you totality bamboozled LOL.

There is a difference between the Christian Fundy Righties who do the electing and those who get elected.  It is easier for a voter to be ignorant than a politician running for office.  Simply running exposes a politician to opposing views and evidence which an ignorant voter does not have to deal with.  A politician at a minimum is exposed to their own ignorance simply because lies must come from their own mouth. 

There was no reason for your fairy intelligent gym owner not to remain as ignorant as he wished because there was nothing in it for him to become enlightened.  A politician running for office is in an entirely different environment where ignorance must be consciously cultivated.  Becoming less ignorant is in a politicians best interest.  The conclusion must be then that they learn facts which break their ignorance but since they pander their votes from ignorant masses they continue to pretend ignorance. 

I'm sure it is true for you RE as it is for me that when we have a need to know something we learn it very fast.  Learning to prevail in a debate against a climate change advocate is more than enough incentive for a Republican politician to learn true facts concerning climate change even if they don't want to.

All Republicans are fools some of the time, and some Republicans are fools all the time, but not all Republicans are fools all of the time.

I'm still not sold KD.  I think politicians are just as willfully ignorant as the people who vote for them.  I don't think Trumpty-Dumpty secretly believes in Climate Change and is just faking not believing it.  I think he truly doesn't believe it because he doesn't WANT to believe it.

RE

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief.  It is a matter of scientific fact.  Not WANTING to believe it is not the same thing as not believing.  Trumpty-Dumpty is a master at manipulating people and part of having his particular talent for manipulation is to be able to put on a front and twist facts in any way necessary to get the behavior from other people he wants to see.  To know that honesty does not matter and only results do is to be in the Trump zone.  Manipulation may be Trump's only talent, though that I doubt, but it is a talent he is a total master of.  We assume too easily that because he is out of touch with reality as we know it, that he must be totally out to touch with reality to the point of madness because only madness can make somebody think that anything they want to be true will be true.  That is childish.  Trump is not a child.

Part of being an American President is the ability to lie with a straight face and sound convincing.  A man who has trouble lying well will never be elected.  The people won't have it.  From that perspective Trump by  far was the more qualified candidate.

Who was the most dishonest of them all?

Diogenies himself.

Sorry, you still haven't sold me.  I never said Trumpty was a child.  I said the he doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change because he doesn't want to believe it.  You can't believe anything unless you have the desire to believe it.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 06:12:46 PM
You can't believe anything unless you have the desire to believe it.

(Leaving aside all other contextualizing topics and adhering only to the statement quoted above):

"You can't believe anything unless you have the desire to believe it."

Is it permissible for me to extract this from the personal "you" and use the less particular "one" instead?

I'll address the statement as if that's okay.

You .. "One can't believe anything unless one has the desire to believe it."

Is this what you believe, RE?

Leaving aside whether or not I believe that you believe this statement, I must insist that ...

I don't believe this.

There are a good many things I'd like not to believe which I do believe.  And the corollary (or companion, perhaps) of this belief of mine about my own believing is also true.:

There are things I'd like to believe which I cannot.

I have other beliefs about my own beliefs and the beliefs of at least a good many other people.

For example, I believe that desiring (or wishing) -- however intensely -- to believe in something is not anywhere near sufficient means to adopt a belief.  And so on..., e.g., I believe wishing to believe X does not exist has no impact or influence on the fact as to whether X exists.

People believe in something when the evidence to them is sufficient for them to believe, provided that they examine and understand that evidence.  The belief can then be altered only with new evidence and understanding -- not by force of will.

These statements about the beliefs of others are relevant in the case where the person in question has normal reasoning faculties and is not seriously mentally ill.

No matter how much effort I put into it, I cannot persuade myself to believe that a rock is a puff of air or that a circle is a square. 

 



Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 06:23:03 PM
PS -

Some of the surprisingly many US Congressional "representatives" who claim that they don't believe in anthropogenic climate disruption are, I'm very convinced, lying about their belief.  One may not be able to will one's self to believe in something, but one certainly can lie about what one does believe.  Very many Congressional "representatives" do this (I feel) with great frequency, and may do it almost enough to convince themselves that they're speaking the truth about their beliefs.  But as soon as they are reflective a moment (say, on their lunch break -- when not dining with a lobbyist ... in the middle of the night, perhaps, when awakening unexpectedly) they will realize they never believed it at all, and were just robotically lying. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 06:23:54 PM
No matter how much effort I put into it, I cannot persuade myself to believe that a rock is a puff of air or that a circle is a square.

First off, climate is not a rock or square, it's a big complex topic.  Second, if you wanted to believe a circle was a square bad enough, you would believe it.  People convince themselves of all sort of preposterous things, like for instance that Noah fit 2 of every living creature on earth into his ark.  Third, you are projecting your inability to change your belief to other people.  Other people change their beliefs to suit the circumstances as necessary, like changing your underwear.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
People convince themselves of all sort of preposterous things, like for instance that Noah fit 2 of every living creature on earth into his ark."

People adopt such beliefs as this unreflectively, and generally in childhood, at the same time that they adopt a belief in Santa Claus, Flying Reindeer pulling a sky-sleigh, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy.  They do so because these beliefs are at least claimed by everyone around them, or everyone who matters enough to them to consider....  These are culturally held default beliefs, not critically attained ones.  Most people eventually outgrow belief in The Tooth Fairy and the popular version of Santa Claus and his Flying Reindeer.  That is, they grow up to become adults with critical thinking skills, intelligence and self-honesty.

Those who continue to believe in " ... Noah fit 2 of every living creature on earth into his ark" have simply not grown up yet.  Or they have no concept of just how many creatures there are on earth and how much they must eat to stay alive for a long flood, etc... -- which amounts, also, to the conclusion that they are still children, even if age 64.

People who deny the basic knowledge which climate science have provided are either children or liars, or some combination of the two.  That is, if they claim to have investigated the topic sufficiently to discern a judgement on the topic.  Which, of course, they have not.  Nor would they, generally.  And this may be because they don't want to believe.  Which is where desire does come in with such beliefs.  One can desire not to become informed because the idea of it is too scary in some way, and thus avoid real acquaintance with the facts.  But when folks do this as "adults" in Congress (etc.) they show that they are adults in numbers (years) only. But not in fact.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 06:56:43 PM
That is, they grow up to become adults with critical thinking skills, intelligence and self-honesty.

Once again, you're projecting yourself onto others.  All 3 of these qualities run on a Bell Curve, and few people are high performers in all 3 areas.  Politicians in general are low performers in the area of self-honesty.  Some are intelligent, but few have good critical thinking skills.  I wouldn'd call them children though, more like retarded adults.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 07:06:22 PM
retarded

adjective
dated, offensive

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

__________________

Yup. Not grown up yet.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 07:10:41 PM
There are multiple dimensions and kinds of human adulthood.

Biological adulthood is just one of these.  There is also mental and emotional and even spiritual adulthood.

Those who achieve full human adulthood, which includes all of these and more, should properly guide a tribe, community, civilization, etc.  Those who have failed to become fully adult humans should not be pretending to offer such guidance.

This is largely why I keep insisting that trump is not qualified for the office he will be entering in a few days.  He's not a human adult, much less a wise elder.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 07:11:27 PM
retarded

adjective
dated, offensive

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

__________________

Yup. Not grown up yet.

Retarded folks never "grow up".  They become adults but their mental faculties get stuck at some point in their development.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 07:17:23 PM
retarded

adjective
dated, offensive

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

__________________

Yup. Not grown up yet.

Retarded folks never "grow up".  They become adults but their mental faculties get stuck at some point in their development.

RE


This applies to a certain percentage of humans, for sure.   Growing up is hard to do. (As the song goes)

The fascinating thing is that this rule applies likely applies as much to whole societies, cultures, civilizations as it does to individuals.  I actually find this fact hypothesis/theory ... much more interesting. 

I hypothesize that those societies which are led or guided (supported, served) by true human adults are those societies which are most apt to produce the conditions in which human adulthood would be the birthright of the majority of its members.  And that those which are led/guided by the 
"retarded" are the most likely to produce the greater number of "retarded" individuals. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 07:26:07 PM
I hypothesize that those societies which are led or guided (supported, served) by true human adults are those societies which are most apt to produce the conditions in which human adulthood would be the birthright of the majority of its members.  And that those which are led/guided by the "retarded" are the most likely to produce the greater number of "retarded" individuals.

The problem is in the size of the society.  When it grows too large it becomes very impersonal and leadership loses connection with the people they lead.  The system also tends to reward power seekers and the greedy.  So you end up with retards running the show.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on December 26, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
"... retards running the show."

Sounds like the new trump reality tv show.  You know, the one in the White House?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on December 26, 2016, 08:09:16 PM
I hypothesize that those societies which are led or guided (supported, served) by true human adults are those societies which are most apt to produce the conditions in which human adulthood would be the birthright of the majority of its members.  And that those which are led/guided by the "retarded" are the most likely to produce the greater number of "retarded" individuals.

The problem is in the size of the society.  When it grows too large it becomes very impersonal and leadership loses connection with the people they lead.  The system also tends to reward power seekers and the greedy.  So you end up with retards running the show.

RE

Yeah, greedy power seeking retards...just like Trump.  God help us!
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on December 26, 2016, 08:19:53 PM
I hypothesize that those societies which are led or guided (supported, served) by true human adults are those societies which are most apt to produce the conditions in which human adulthood would be the birthright of the majority of its members.  And that those which are led/guided by the "retarded" are the most likely to produce the greater number of "retarded" individuals.

The problem is in the size of the society.  When it grows too large it becomes very impersonal and leadership loses connection with the people they lead.  The system also tends to reward power seekers and the greedy.  So you end up with retards running the show.

RE

Yeah, greedy power seeking retards...just like Trump.  God help us!

Forget the Foxes in charge of the Henhouse.  Now we have the Retards Running the Roost!  ::)

RE
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty & Vlad the Impaler: A Marriage made in...
Post by: RE on December 31, 2016, 03:09:21 AM
...Heaven or Hell?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-and-putin-a-relationship-where-mutual-admiration-is-headed-toward-reality/2016/12/30/f900b3e2-cebd-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.e0a93e46ef75 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-and-putin-a-relationship-where-mutual-admiration-is-headed-toward-reality/2016/12/30/f900b3e2-cebd-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.e0a93e46ef75)

National Security
Trump and Putin: A relationship where mutual admiration is headed toward reality

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/12/30/National-Security/Images/05691982.jpg?uuid=CNU_bs7gEeanR9AwRHgKAg)

Depending on who you ask, Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, will find it easy to take advantage of Donald Trump’s inexperience — or Trump will use his dealmaking skills to improve U.S.-Russia ties. (Michael Klimentyev /Pool via European Pressphoto Agency)
By Karen DeYoung and David Filipov December 30 at 8:17 PM

For much of this year, Donald Trump and Vladi­mir Putin have been engaged in a long-distance courtship. They have said kind things about each other in public and separately expressed visions of a mutually agreeable future.

Since Trump’s election, the anticipation has become more explicit. It culminated this week in the U.S. president-elect’s call for America to “move on” from allegations of Russian electoral hacking, and the Russian president’s blithe pronouncement Friday that he would rather plan for a new relationship with Trump than retaliate in kind to sanctions and expulsions ordered by outgoing President Obama.

“Great move on delay (by V. Putin),” Trump tweeted. “I always knew he was very smart!”

But as with all such arms-length pairings, the looming question is whether Trump and Putin will find fulfillment or disappointment once face-to-face reality strikes.

U.S. and Russian officials and experts are deeply divided over the answer. Some see Moscow playing Trump like a fiddle. The Kremlin “sees Trump’s presidency as a net loss for the U.S. strategic position that Russia should take advantage of,” said Vladi­mir Frolov, a Moscow-based analyst.
What the U.S. measures against Russia mean for the relationship between the two countries
Play Video2:40
The Post's Karen DeYoung looks at the implications of the latest measures taken by the Obama administration against Russia and its interference in the U.S. election. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Others depict the Russians as genuinely willing to deal and cautiously optimistic about improved relations under a U.S. president who has none of the prejudices they see in the Obama administration.

[Putin says he won’t deport U.S. diplomats as he looks to cultivate relations with Trump]

While some fear that Trump has no firm understanding of the policy complications ahead and the threats posed by Russia, others say Trump the dealmaker may be just the right person to set relations back on a road to cooperation that will benefit U.S. national security.

Trump has identified areas of shared U.S.-Russia interests, including counterterrorism in general — and rolling back the Islamic State in particular — as well as countering nuclear weapons proliferation. He has suggested that there are deals to be struck with Moscow on Syria and Ukraine, indicated that NATO’s strong defensive posture on Russia’s western border may be negotiable, expressed skepticism about sanctions — unless applied to Iran or North Korea — and implied that the fuss over Russian electoral hacking is overblown.

Some of his pronouncements have huge policy gaps and contradictions. In Syria, for example, how would counterterrorism cooperation with Russia against the Islamic State influence Trump’s plans to crack down on Russian ally Iran, which has its own interests in both Syria and Iraq?

The first indication of policy substance may come two weeks from now, when Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson — the ExxonMobil chief executive who has argued that sanctions against Russia hurt U.S. business — appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Several Republican lawmakers, including committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.), have said that any move to begin a new relationship with Russia by diluting or removing Ukraine-related sanctions is a nonstarter.

[Senate Democrats plan to run their Trump playbook against Tillerson

Putin and his advisers have spoken about a desire to improve relations, although there is no Kremlin expectation that Inauguration Day will bring an overnight change. While pleased by the direction in which Trump appears to be moving, Moscow sees “policy incoherence” so far from the president-elect, said Thomas Graham, who served as senior Russia director on George W. Bush’s National Security Council staff and is now managing director at Kissinger Associates.

“If I read what the Russians have been saying, they don’t expect relations to turn around quickly,” Graham said in an interview. “They’re surprised that on the Western side it’s seen as if President Trump is going to hand over the keys to the barn to Russians.”

But however disjointed and contradictory his shorthand policy prescriptions have seemed so far, “the vision in the Kremlin is that even though Trump is a novice in foreign policy, he has a record of striking deals that benefit him, as well as a team of experienced advisers,” said Maxim A. Suchkov, an analyst at the Russian International Affairs Council, a Moscow think tank.

Some Russian experts said the Kremlin realizes that if Trump moves too fast — especially in the wake of the hacking scandal — it would probably cause strong pushback from Congress and elsewhere. Instead, they see Putin’s most recent actions as part of the pre-inauguration theater, preparing the ground for a hoped-for, but still uncertain, future.

“Putin will play this as Obama acting like a deranged and spiteful madman, while Trump is a real gentleman who needs to be treated like a gent by Russia,” Frolov said of Putin’s low-key response to the sanctions and expulsions. The Russian president “does not want to do anything that would make it even harder for Trump to move positively on Russia,” he said.

[Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference]

Others detected a more nefarious strategy at work in Putin’s gambit. “I think it’s brilliant,” said Steve Hall, who ran Russia operations for the CIA before his retirement in 2015. “It solidifies the relationship and plays straight to Trump’s ego. It allows Trump to say, ‘See, the Obama administration is behaving childishly, and we need to act much more professionally.’ ”

Putin, Hall said, is also probably maneuvering to gain maximum leverage over an incoming president whose constant touting of himself as a dealmaker makes him need a deal more than Moscow does. Now, he said, Putin can greet the new president by saying: “You still owe me one. I can pull that back and make you look like you’re not the great negotiator you say you are.”

Despite differences on how to deal with individual conflicts, think tanks across Washington have advised Trump to end the Obama-era policy of not talking to the Kremlin and to begin a new, across-the-board dialogue.

On its own, “dialogue won’t be enough in and of itself over time,” Andrew C. Kuchins, a senior fellow and research professor at the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, said in an interview. “The Trump folks would make a huge mistake if they unilaterally repealed sanctions. Congress would re-legislate them, creating a Jackson-Vanik situation,” he said, referring to the 1974 law that restricted the president’s ability to trade with Soviet Bloc countries that restricted human rights.

After interviewing policymakers and experts in this country and in Russia, Kuchins this month issued a lengthy report for the Center on Global Interests, recommending an elevation of the U.S.-Russia relationship to the presidential level “as incentive for Moscow to adjust and accommodate,” and a bilateral renewal of dialogue on a range of issues, from arms control and terrorism to cybersecurity. At the same time, he wrote, a “calibrated” approach must include a firm U.S. commitment to NATO allies and the continuation of a credible deterrent against Russian encroachments in Eastern Europe.

“This is not a call for a ‘reset’ or a ‘strategic partnership,’ ” Ku­chins wrote, “but a reevaluation of the excessive risks the United States is running with the current downward trajectory of U.S.-Russia relations. Containment or deterrence alone cannot mitigate these risks.”

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, while emphasizing that he did not necessarily support it, outlined a possible play for Trump that would combine several policy priorities. “You could see a Trump administration potentially diminishing or suspending U.S. sanctions on Russia, working with the Europeans, recognizing the de facto annexation of Crimea, and making clear the United States is not going to permit Ukraine to join NATO or the European Union. It would be a signal to Putin that NATO expansion has stopped.

“But at the same time,” Dubowitz said, “in exchange for what are significant concessions to Putin, you get agreement to roll back Iranian influence in Syria and to make changes” to the Iran nuclear deal, which both the United States and Russia negotiated.

Overall, experts stressed the need for transparency and communication on a range of issues that are now at a stalemate.

“We don’t want this to spin out of control. We need to have conversations to understand what people are doing so that we don’t misread each other,” said Graham, who declined to comment on media reports that he is under consideration as Trump’s ambassador to Moscow.

The question, Graham said, is whether Trump has the patience to take his time. “Will Trump understand that negotiations with Russia need to be from a position of strength? That means he needs to have the allies behind him. Are you, Trump, so enamored with Putin that you decide first thing you need to sit down and have a conversation, or do you do it the way other presidents did?

“Are you going to see him at the end of a European trip, where you talk to the allies first and make sure you have a common understanding of the challenge, a common understanding of how you’re going to deal with it? To then say: ‘We’re now going to sit down with you, Mr. Putin. . . . We’re prepared to take your interests into account, but you also need to take our interests into account.’ ”
CONTENT FROM OPPENHEIMERFUNDS
But how do you really feel?
Regardless of party affiliation, gender and income level, most people are more optimistic than they think.

“I actually think the Russians may not expect that,” Graham said. “But they would respect it and be able to deal with it.”

Filipov reported from Moscow. Greg Miller, Karoun Demirjian and Robert Costa in Washington contributed to this report.
Title: Ethics? We Don't NEED no STINKIN' ETHICS!
Post by: RE on January 02, 2017, 08:01:15 PM
Can the Righty Show get any better than this?  ???  :icon_scratch:

http://www.youtube.com/v/VqomZQMZQCQ

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/)

House GOP guts ethics panel
Deirdre Walsh Profile

By Deirdre Walsh and Daniella Diaz, CNN

Updated 10:28 PM ET, Mon January 2, 2017
Democrats target Trump nominees

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 27: U.S. President Barack Obama signs three bills into law on the Resolute Desk inside the Oval Office at the White House November 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama signed S. 252, the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Reauthorization Act or the "PREEMIE Reauthorization Act"; H.R. 1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013; and H.R. 3204, the Drug Quality and Security Act . (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Does racism fuel Obama opposition?
Joe Biden Tapper interview
Biden on why Clinton lost working-class whites
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt arrives at Trump Tower on December 7, 2016 in New York City.
Who is Scott Pruitt?
adam kinzinger cry
Rep. Kinzinger tears up during interview
Sandy Hook, Kentucky, the county chair of Elliott County.
Donald Trump broke a 144-year streak in this town
Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine introduces presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on October 22, 2016.
Sen. Kaine: Gen. Flynn doesn't have judgment
In this handout image provided by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), former Commander of International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan; CIA Director Gen. Davis Petraeus, left, shakes hands with biographer Paula Broadwell, co-author of 'All In: The Education of General David Petraeus' on July 13, 2011.
Broadwell: I'm shocked Petraeus is considered
mayor emanuel rahm trump dreamers time nr_00000000.jpg
Chicago Mayor urges Trump to help 'Dreamers'
Sen. Chuck Schumer smiles as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid talks to the media on Capitol Hill on September 27, 2016.
Democrats target Trump nominees
US President Barack Obama (R) listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin after their bilateral meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico on June 18, 2012 on the sidelines of the G20 summit. Obama and President Vladimir Putin met Monday, for the first time since the Russian leader's return to the presidency, for talks overshadowed by a row over Syria. The closely watched meeting opened half-an-hour late on the sidelines of the G20 summit of developed and developing nations, as the US leader sought to preserve his "reset" of ties with Moscow despite building disagreements. AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
Obama orders Russian hacking probe
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his wife Judith Giuliani during Republican president-elect Donald Trump election night event at the New York Hilton Midtown in the early morning hours of November 9, 2016 in New York City.
Giuliani withdraws Trump cabinet candidacy
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA - JANUARY 20: (NOTE TO EDITORS: PHOTO HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY US MILITARY OFFICIALS) U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Bill Mesta replaces an official picture of outgoing President George W. Bush with that of newly- sworn-in U.S. President Barack Obama, in the lobby of the headquarters of the U.S. Naval Base January 20, 2009 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bush's eight-year presidency, which has overseen the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere, concluded midday today, and President Barack Obama has said he intends to close the offshore prison and move the trials to U.S. courts. (Photo by Brennan Linsley-Pool/Getty Images)
A look at past presidential transitions
She was attacked by Donald Trump on Twitter
white house obama russia hacking review_00021202.jpg
White House: Hacking directed from Russia
Vice President Joe Biden expresses his disappointmetn in the campaign.
Biden: 'I feel embarrassed' by campaign
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 27: U.S. President Barack Obama signs three bills into law on the Resolute Desk inside the Oval Office at the White House November 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama signed S. 252, the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Reauthorization Act or the "PREEMIE Reauthorization Act"; H.R. 1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013; and H.R. 3204, the Drug Quality and Security Act . (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Does racism fuel Obama opposition?
Joe Biden Tapper interview
Biden on why Clinton lost working-class whites
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt arrives at Trump Tower on December 7, 2016 in New York City.
Who is Scott Pruitt?
adam kinzinger cry
Rep. Kinzinger tears up during interview
Sandy Hook, Kentucky, the county chair of Elliott County.
Donald Trump broke a 144-year streak in this town
Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine introduces presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on October 22, 2016.
Sen. Kaine: Gen. Flynn doesn't have judgment
In this handout image provided by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), former Commander of International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan; CIA Director Gen. Davis Petraeus, left, shakes hands with biographer Paula Broadwell, co-author of 'All In: The Education of General David Petraeus' on July 13, 2011.
Broadwell: I'm shocked Petraeus is considered
mayor emanuel rahm trump dreamers time nr_00000000.jpg
Chicago Mayor urges Trump to help 'Dreamers'
Sen. Chuck Schumer smiles as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid talks to the media on Capitol Hill on September 27, 2016.
Democrats target Trump nominees
US President Barack Obama (R) listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin after their bilateral meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico on June 18, 2012 on the sidelines of the G20 summit. Obama and President Vladimir Putin met Monday, for the first time since the Russian leader's return to the presidency, for talks overshadowed by a row over Syria. The closely watched meeting opened half-an-hour late on the sidelines of the G20 summit of developed and developing nations, as the US leader sought to preserve his "reset" of ties with Moscow despite building disagreements. AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
Obama orders Russian hacking probe
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his wife Judith Giuliani during Republican president-elect Donald Trump election night event at the New York Hilton Midtown in the early morning hours of November 9, 2016 in New York City.
Giuliani withdraws Trump cabinet candidacy
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA - JANUARY 20: (NOTE TO EDITORS: PHOTO HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY US MILITARY OFFICIALS) U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Bill Mesta replaces an official picture of outgoing President George W. Bush with that of newly- sworn-in U.S. President Barack Obama, in the lobby of the headquarters of the U.S. Naval Base January 20, 2009 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bush's eight-year presidency, which has overseen the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere, concluded midday today, and President Barack Obama has said he intends to close the offshore prison and move the trials to U.S. courts. (Photo by Brennan Linsley-Pool/Getty Images)
A look at past presidential transitions
She was attacked by Donald Trump on Twitter
white house obama russia hacking review_00021202.jpg
White House: Hacking directed from Russia
Vice President Joe Biden expresses his disappointmetn in the campaign.
Biden: 'I feel embarrassed' by campaign
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 27: U.S. President Barack Obama signs three bills into law on the Resolute Desk inside the Oval Office at the White House November 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama signed S. 252, the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Reauthorization Act or the "PREEMIE Reauthorization Act"; H.R. 1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013; and H.R. 3204, the Drug Quality and Security Act . (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Does racism fuel Obama opposition?
Story highlights

    The amendment was proposed by Republican Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte
    This move would weaken ethics oversight in Congress

Washington (CNN)House Republicans voted 119-74 Monday night in favor of a proposal that would gut Congress' outside ethics watchdog and remove its independence.
Republican Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte's proposal would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics -- an initial watchdog for House members but without power to punish members -- under oversight of those very lawmakers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top GOP leaders opposed the change to ethics rules, but rank-and-file members disregarded their views and voted to approve the new structure for ethics reviews going forward, according to a senior House GOP leadership source familiar with the closed door discussion.
The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over any complaint to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.
And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.
The full House of Representatives will now vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration on Tuesday.
Goodlatte argued that changing the ethics review process "strengthens the mission" of the office and it will remain the panel to review potential rules violations.
"It also improves upon due process rights for individuals under investigation, as well as witnesses called to testify. The (ethics office) has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work," Goodlatte said in a written statement Monday evening.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed the move.
"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress," she said in a statement Monday following the vote.
Pelosi added: "The amendment Republicans approved tonight would functionally destroy this office."
But GOP Rep. Hal Rogers, the Appropriations Committee chairman, told reporters he backed the proposal because "it's the right thing to do."
Rogers said there were "numerous examples" of members "who were falsely accused by this group who had to spend a fortune to get their good name restored so I think there's been an abuse."
Hill Republicans eye busy first 100 days of 2017
Hill Republicans eye busy first 100 days of 2017
Texas Congressman Bill Flores also backed the change saying the panel is "out of control‎, we don't even get constitutional rights, constitutional protections. They don't tell us who accuses us and they leak the data -- they are out of control."
Currently the ethics panel operates as an independent, non-partisan entity that has the power to investigate misconduct against lawmakers, officers and staff of the United States House of Representatives. Originally created by Congress under Pelosi's speakership in the wake of multiple lobbying scandals, it continued to act as an independent body under then-House Speaker John Boehner.
The proposal carries the appearance of House members taking power away from the office that can investigate them for misconduct.
Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations, and once they launch a probe members have to mount expensive defense campaigns.
But outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.
"Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress," said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. "This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending."
Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group said the ethics office "has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug."
"If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated," they said in a Monday night statement.
Eisen served as the top ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and Painter held the same job under President George W. Bush.
CNN's Tal Kopan contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 03, 2017, 08:46:23 AM
The first half to two thirds of that post looks like clutter and gibberish. Right?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 03, 2017, 08:51:12 AM
The first half to two thirds of that post looks like clutter and gibberish. Right?

Artifact of the paste and the way CNN has their HTML set up.

If you want a clear read, follow the link to the CNN original site.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on January 04, 2017, 05:09:46 PM
I'll go the Podesta emails looking for phishing emails, and get to the bottom of this (I hope).  Bit short on time right now.

https://www.rt.com/news/372640-russia-wikileaks-assange-source/ (https://www.rt.com/news/372640-russia-wikileaks-assange-source/)
'14-yr old kid could do it’- Assange on Podesta email hack
4 Jan, 2017

Even a 14-year old teenager could have hacked the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

"We published several ... emails which show Podesta responding to a phishing email," Assange stressed speaking from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

"Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’.  His own staff said this email that you’ve received, this is totally legitimate.  So, this is something ... a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta that way,” he said in an interview which aired on "Hannity" Tuesday night.

He added that neither the Russian government nor “a state party” was the source of emails from Podesta, published on the WikiLeaks website.

“We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange said.

Assange noted that for some reason, “the word WikiLeaks” was missing in recent statements from the FBI and White House, even when US President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats in what he said was Washington’s “response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of US officials and cyber operations aimed at the US election.”

“It’s very strange,” Assange told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. Asked whether he thought Obama lied to the American people about Russia’s involvement, Assange replied that the outgoing president has been “acting like a lawyer” with his allegations.

“If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, worked with Russia,” Assange said.

    Julian Assange said "a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta" - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2017

The 45-year-old Australian said the Obama administration was meanwhile trying to “delegitimize” US President-elect Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” Assange said.

There is “zero evidence” that Russia influenced the US presidential election, incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Fox News on Tuesday, adding that it would be “irresponsible to jump to conclusions” before receiving a final intelligence report.

Spicer noted that the preliminary report, published on Thursday, was basically just “a how-to manual for the DNC as to how they can improve their IT security.”

“The way the mainstream media is playing this up is that [Russia] had an influence on the election,”Spicer added.

Earlier, CIA Director John Brennan said the forthcoming intelligence report would set the record straight. “I would suggest to individuals that have not yet seen the report, who have not yet been briefed on it, that they wait and see what it is that the intelligence community is putting forward before they make those judgments,” he told PBS on Tuesday.

    The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 4 января 2017 г.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said that a briefing he was due to receive on Russia’s alleged hack attacks and meddling with US elections was strangely delayed until Friday, making the President-elect wonder whether there was enough “intelligence” to “build” the case in the first place.

Trump previously expressed skepticism about the US intelligence community’s assessment of Moscow’s involvement in hack attacks and its alleged attempts to influence presidential elections. “I just want them to be sure because it’s a pretty serious charge,” Trump said on December 31, recalling the US invasion in Iraq was based on flawed and false intelligence. “If you look at the weapons of mass destruction, that was a disaster, and they were wrong,” he added.
Title: Kick My Face
Post by: JRM on January 04, 2017, 05:51:06 PM
Oh, Gawd!  Where are we?  A total fascist creepizoid arse-face like Trump, acting as a Republican, just handed the Republicans of a few years ago a poop sandwich by stating what we all should know about the false pretenses behind the Iraq war.  But the same dickwad is preparing for the most outragiously fascist, plutocratic face-kicking administration in World History. So we're supposed to love him and thank him and just fall all over ourselves and shit. ::)
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: luciddreams on January 04, 2017, 06:23:00 PM
Oh, Gawd!  Where are we?  A total fascist creepizoid arse-face like Trump, acting as a Republican, just handed the Republicans of a few years ago a poop sandwich by stating what we all should know about the false pretenses behind the Iraq war.  But the same dickwad is preparing for the most outragiously fascist, plutocratic face-kicking administration in World History. So we're supposed to love him and thank him and just fall all over ourselves and shit. ::)

Fuck Trump.  I won't recognize him as POTUS.  In fact, I don't recognize Washington D.C. as the city that houses the leaders of my "country," either. 

The Corporatocracy runs the world.  Trump is just another egocentric fuck stick "in charge" of shit.  The only thing he's in charge of is the bullshit that spews out of his infantile mouth...he's in pretty good command of that bullshit. 
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: RE on January 04, 2017, 06:34:01 PM
Oh, Gawd!  Where are we?  A total fascist creepizoid arse-face like Trump, acting as a Republican, just handed the Republicans of a few years ago a poop sandwich by stating what we all should know about the false pretenses behind the Iraq war.  But the same dickwad is preparing for the most outragiously fascist, plutocratic face-kicking administration in World History. So we're supposed to love him and thank him and just fall all over ourselves and shit. ::)

Fuck Trump.  I won't recognize him as POTUS.  In fact, I don't recognize Washington D.C. as the city that houses the leaders of my "country," either. 

The Corporatocracy runs the world.  Trump is just another egocentric fuck stick "in charge" of shit.  The only thing he's in charge of is the bullshit that spews out of his infantile mouth...he's in pretty good command of that bullshit.

We need an "unrecognize Da Goobermint" referndum!

RE
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: g on January 04, 2017, 06:44:36 PM
Oh, Gawd!  Where are we?  A total fascist creepizoid arse-face like Trump, acting as a Republican, just handed the Republicans of a few years ago a poop sandwich by stating what we all should know about the false pretenses behind the Iraq war.  But the same dickwad is preparing for the most outragiously fascist, plutocratic face-kicking administration in World History. So we're supposed to love him and thank him and just fall all over ourselves and shit. ::)

Fuck Trump.  I won't recognize him as POTUS.  In fact, I don't recognize Washington D.C. as the city that houses the leaders of my "country," either. 

The Corporatocracy runs the world.  Trump is just another egocentric fuck stick "in charge" of shit.  The only thing he's in charge of is the bullshit that spews out of his infantile mouth...he's in pretty good command of that bullshit.

We need an "unrecognize Da Goobermint" referndum!

RE

That's the Libertarian idea, but you don't believe it.

Allow me to correct your statement Statist

We need to recognize Lefty Commie Goobermint and reject the others. Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: JRM on January 04, 2017, 07:24:56 PM

That's the Libertarian idea, but you don't believe it.

Allow me to correct your statement Statist

We need to recognize Lefty Commie Goobermint and reject the others. Fixed it for you.

Give me a way-out-left "commie" anti-authoritarian, decentralized pinko socialist anarchist society and I'll be happy.

I do not like or trust Right "libertarianism," which I regard as just another form of totalitarian authoritarianism in "libertarian" drag.  Left libertarianism? Sure, why not?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on January 04, 2017, 10:48:42 PM
Nobody wants to go the way we are going now, the Corporatocracy way, on that I think we can all agree.

The trouble is, of the many disaffected, some want MORE Government For The People (good Social Security Safety Net, Health, Education, Police that serve us, no more foreign wars), while some just want LESS Government (everybody to be more self-reliant I they can, and prison if they can't  ::) ).

No one is standing up and saying these things on the MSM Corporatocracy stage or on any other stage.  Bernie Sanders was only ever intending to micro-reform, but he was party-machined out of it and ended up backing the machine, FCS.  Tulsi Gabbard didn't get hammered, so she looks like the bet for the left.  I don't know if anyone stands out for the Libertarians.  Ron Paul, PCR - too old.

Has anyone here mentioned the about-face the Congress just did over the Ethics Oversight Committee business?  One minute they voted to de-fang the Committee, then Donald tweeted that wasn't so good, and the next they changed their minds and votes.  Has that ever happened before with a President-Elect ?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Surly1 on January 05, 2017, 02:39:22 AM
Has anyone here mentioned the about-face the Congress just did over the Ethics Oversight Committee business?  One minute they voted to de-fang the Committee, then Donald tweeted that wasn't so good, and the next they changed their minds and votes.  Has that ever happened before with a President-Elect ?

What happened was that the House members got fuckhammered by phone calls from constituents with torches and pitchforks, outraged that the solons' FIRST move was to remove the threat of public accountability in what should have been called, "Free to Go Fuck a Congressional Page Day." Drumpf did nothing more than offer his usual morning tweet from his golden shitter, piling on and taking credit for something that was already going to happen anyway: his observable MO.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/public-outrage-not-trumps-tepid-rebuke-upends-gop-attack-ethics-panel/223723/ (http://www.mintpressnews.com/public-outrage-not-trumps-tepid-rebuke-upends-gop-attack-ethics-panel/223723/)
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: Surly1 on January 05, 2017, 02:58:23 AM

That's the Libertarian idea, but you don't believe it.

Allow me to correct your statement Statist

We need to recognize Lefty Commie Goobermint and reject the others. Fixed it for you.

Give me a way-out-left "commie" anti-authoritarian, decentralized pinko socialist anarchist society and I'll be happy.

I do not like or trust Right "libertarianism," which I regard as just another form of totalitarian authoritarianism in "libertarian" drag.  Left libertarianism? Sure, why not?

"Libertarianism" is a Utopian political ideology which claims to support individual freedoms in all areas socially and economically. Ironically, while they advocate "small" government, (i.e. reduction of government in all areas except those which protect the domination of the capitalist class), in practice this leads to oppression dominated even more than now by a wealthy few. Because of this, libertarianism can be described as a form of corporatism in disguise. See Mussolini.

A libertarian wants to take America back to the way it was run in the 1800s, regardless of how much the world has changed since then. Libertarians also have mean hard-ons for unregulated capitalism, believing that the "Invisible Hand" will erase poverty and create a utopia instead of what ACTUALLY happens when you let companies do whatever they want, which is:

-Children working in factories and mines
-Corporate monopolies
-Workplaces where death is likely
-Low, low wages
-Shit in your food (See Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle")
-Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
-Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union

Libertarianism is, always and everywhere, a synonym for selfishness. Those "regulations" they want to get "off your back" are the few remaining guarantees you have for health and safety earned over 80 years of politics. They have been eroded over the past 40 years of class war.

But don't believe me. Believe these:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
― John Kenneth Galbraith

“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
― Christopher Hitchens

"Libertarianism... helps conservatives pass off a patently pro-business political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom. Whatever we may think of libertarianism as a set of ideas, practically speaking, it is a doctrine that owes its visibility to the obvious charms it holds for the wealthy and the powerful. The reason we have so many well-funded libertarians in America these days is not because libertarianism has acquired an enormous grassroots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas."
― Thomas Frank


Cue the bleating.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: g on January 05, 2017, 03:21:47 AM
Quote
-Children working in factories and mines
-Corporate monopolies
-Workplaces where death is likely
-Low, low wages
-Shit in your food (See Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle")
-Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
-Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union

Yes indeed. What a Libertarian is, to a Communist that is.

You forgot to tell them that we don't plow roads, have fire and police departments, or a CIA, FBI and other assorted government spy agencies to control the citizenry with Comrade.

Animals that are opposed to wars and foreign entanglements as well.

Let's round them all up and send them to the Gulag where they belong, and leave the world to the good caring folks like yourself Comrade.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 03:37:22 AM
leave the world to the good caring folks like yourself Comrade.

That is a Violation of the CoC.  Your not Surly's comrade.  You have to be a Lefty to be comrades.

GO is simply afraid Communists will take away his coin & stamp collections.  He prefers to have Fascists like John Corzine steal his money.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: g on January 05, 2017, 03:52:44 AM
leave the world to the good caring folks like yourself Comrade.

That is a Violation of the CoC.  Your not Surly's comrade.  You have to be a Lefty to be comrades.

GO is simply afraid Communists will take away his coin & stamp collections.  He prefers to have Fascists like John Corzine steal his money.

RE

Your idea that one must be a comrade to call another one is as ridiculous as most of your ideas.

Thank you for pointing out an Icon of the Left in your posting however. Chief fund raiser of Obama's. Democratic governor of NJ who stole his customers funds to gamble in the markets, lost it all, and never even did a perp walk. He was rewarded for his theft by having a luncheon with his Pal Obama a few weeks later.

Thanks for pointing out what he was.

No Shame, None, not a Smidgeon. A Motley Crew indeed.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 03:59:16 AM

Your idea that one must be a comrade to call another one is as ridiculous as most of your ideas.

That is a Violation of the CoC.

RE
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 04:05:02 AM
See Mussolini.

Father of Libertarians
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/31/15/37C16BF700000578-3767201-image-a-60_1472653614419.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: g on January 05, 2017, 04:25:16 AM
See Mussolini.

Father of Libertarians
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/31/15/37C16BF700000578-3767201-image-a-60_1472653614419.jpg)

RE

Don't ever Fuck with Benito. Power of God he had, yes indeed.

Fuck with him and you were TOAST

Powerful as the owner and Admin of DD he was, yes indeed.

You fuck with guys like that and your touched in the fucking head. Power of God they have, yes indeed, "The Power of God"  :-[

They can say the moon is made out of bleu cheese and dictators are Libertarians, or grass is pink and you had better LISTEN and STFU.

Not a peep, just STFU, listen carefully and whatever you do, don't burst out laughing.  ::) ;D

                   
                                                   
Title: Re: Kick My Face
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 04:33:51 AM
You fuck with guys like that and your touched in the fucking head. Power of God they have, yes indeed, "The Power of God"

That is a Violation of the CoC.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 08:54:35 AM
Several posters above, including Surly, have failed to acknowledge something I find crucially important about libertarianism.  And that is the fact that there are at least two basic kinds of libertarianism.  The divide is on the axis of Left and Right. There are these two basic types (from which one may perhaps extrapolate in various ways, including extracting a center between the two poles).

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/323/Political_chart.svg.png (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/323/Political_chart.svg.png)

Lower case l libertarianism is essentially anti-authoritarianism. (Capital L Libertarian refers to the party.)  There are myriad kinds and approaches to anti authoritarianism, as well as a spectra of and between these kinds.

Left libertarians like myself grow weary of the habit which so many people have of lumping all libertarians together as if there were only one kind.  The kind I have in mind, of course, is the kind represented by the so-called "Libertarian Party" in the United states, a party which is in general agreement with Ayn Rand's strikingly ridiculous "philosophy". 

The "libertarianism" of Rand, and of the American Libertarian Party, ultimately isn't libertarian at all, because (as Surly so well pointed out) the full implementation of this political "philosophy" would simply result in an extreme form of oppression / tyranny, this time by corporations rather than by the state.  Capital L (Right) libertarians deny that this is so, but have no sound counterarguments to those who disagree with them. The only way it could be different would be if the modern corporation were to be radically redesigned as a non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian system.  But this would  be to drive a stake into its heart. It would no longer resemble anything we would recognize as a modern business corporation.  That corporations would redesign themselves in this way voluntarily is a preposterous pipe dream.  Libertarians of the capital L variety are at least dishonest with themselves, if not with others as well.  There would be no liberty in setting the corporation even more "free" from democratic control and oversight than they have at present -- which is precisely what the Libertarians seek to do by eliminating essentially all "government intrusion" on their "freedom".

Left libertarianism gets disregarded too often, but for somewhat understandable reasons.  There are no equivalents in the left-lib world of the Libertarian party, nor of Ayn Rand (and otherwise Right "libertarian") inspired organizations, which are fed by billions of dollars by billionaires who are the living heart and soul of Right "libertarianism".  Thus the public hears the loud voice of the Right "libertarians" daily while the whisper of the left-libs is drowned out.

Left libertarianism would put people at the helm of their society, not billionaires and corporations.  This is why we are the TRUE and only real libertarians.  These others are imposters with a trick up their sleeve. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 12:40:48 PM
Anyone curious to know more about, or discuss, left-libertarianism might want to check this out:  http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8762.0.html (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8762.0.html)

If anyone would like to debate with me about the Libertarian party and its version of right-libertarianism (or right-libertarianism in general), I'd be happy to represent a left-libertarian in a debate against a right-libertarian (or even a capital L Libertarian [party member or advocate]).  If my debate challenge is accepted we will need to create a special thread for just that purpose.

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on January 05, 2017, 03:14:42 PM
Anyone curious to know more about, or discuss, left-libertarianism might want to check this out:  http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8762.0.html (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8762.0.html)

If anyone would like to debate with me about the Libertarian party and its version of right-libertarianism (or right-libertarianism in general), I'd be happy to represent a left-libertarian in a debate against a right-libertarian (or even a capital L Libertarian [party member or advocate]).  If my debate challenge is accepted we will need to create a special thread for just that purpose.

I think Ox would be the man for that job. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 05, 2017, 04:14:53 PM
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216142007.png)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 04:26:26 PM
I think Ox would be the man for that job.

I doubt he'd accept that challenge.  He clearly has a distaste for all political philosophy.  He just looks incoherent to me most of the time.  Do you think he could handle an adult conversation on such matters?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 04:35:14 PM
Nobody wants to go the way we are going now, the Corporatocracy way, on that I think we can all agree.

.... some want MORE Government For The People ....

The MORE I want more of is more power in the hands of the people to constrain and limit the corporatocracy and/or the very rich (oligarchy, plutocracy, tyranny...). That is to "regulate" corporations ... or to eliminate them.  At least we should shrink them so small that if we must we can drown them in a bath tub.

Wanting that is hardly wanting Big Government or a "nanny state," etc.  I just want a living planet and an economy which serves EVERYONE, not just the richest few.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on January 05, 2017, 07:39:31 PM
Yes, but come the revolution, comrade, we will no longer have a corporatocracy - it will have imploded due to its internal contradictions, and the ancient regime will be dangling from lampposts.  What we will have is chaos in the streets, a big sense of euphoria at having cast off our overlords, and a confusing mix of "what we all want next". 

I honestly don't think we are ready for that.  Occupy got people together on the streets to talk about it, but as far as I can tell, nothing got decided, nor even several different visions with policy positions formulated (manifestos, if you like).  I could be wrong about that, but it certainly didn't appear in my internet browsing. 

Any group that had its shit together (like the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2012) could declare The X Manifesto to be the new Constitution, and sweep in to power to fill the vacuum.

The Manifesto doesn't have to be a detailed thing at that stage, but it does have to be ready-to-go.  It has got to have something in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, Human Rights, Women's Rights, and whatever else has got/will get people out on the streets in support.  It has got to have a web site, and some means for people to read what you are on about, sign up, ask questions on a forum, meet at local locations, have meetings, make further resolutions.

Despite the role the police have played in the corporatocracy, you can't hang them all.  Hopefully they will take their uniforms off and run away (as the Burkit (?) did in Ukraine in 2012).  Any that willingly acknowledge the new Constitution, can form the basis of the New Police.

There are going to have to be LOTS of people (corporatists) taken out of the game by being arrested and locked up in stadiums - ALL of the Administration, Congress, Treasury, the banks, the judges, media proprietors, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 07:55:12 PM
There are going to have to be LOTS of people (corporatists) taken out of the game by being arrested and locked up in stadiums - ALL of the Administration, Congress, Treasury, the banks, the judges, media proprietors, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security.

And who will pay to feed these locked up Pigmen?  ???  :icon_scratch:  And why?

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 08:06:08 PM
Any group that had its shit together (like the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2012) could declare The X Manifesto to be the new Constitution, and sweep in to power to fill the vacuum.


[Chorus]
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again


Who said that?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 05, 2017, 08:11:59 PM
[Verse 2]
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 05, 2017, 08:30:06 PM
Any group that had its shit together (like the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2012) could declare The X Manifesto to be the new Constitution, and sweep in to power to fill the vacuum.


[Chorus]
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again


Who said that?

Who did.

http://www.youtube.com/v/SHhrZgojY1Q

RE
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty sat on a Great Wall...
Post by: RE on January 06, 2017, 02:49:04 AM
(http://cdn.sailingscuttlebutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/humpty-dumpty.jpg)

RE

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-gop-trump-border-wall-233237 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-gop-trump-border-wall-233237)

 House GOP, Trump team hatch border wall plan

The emerging proposal would rely on a law signed by George W. Bush and potentially spark a government funding showdown with Democrats.

By Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan

01/05/17 06:10 PM EST

Updated 01/05/17 06:39 PM EST

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/39f4eae/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd8%2F5a%2F54ef23e54a3ab49a7715013782a9%2F170105-trump-ryan-getty-1160.jpg)
Republican leaders, in tandem with Donald Trump’s transition staff, are considering utilizing a law that authorized the construction of 700 miles-plus of “physical barrier” on the southern border. | Getty


    06_Donald_Trump_13_gty_1160.jpg
    How Trump Could Declare a Trade Emergency

    By Todd Tucker
    1712_plokhii_berlinwall_ap.jpg
    How a KGB Assassin Used the Death of His Child to Defect

    By Serhii Plokhy
    17104_northkorea_icbms_getty.jpg
    Is Kim Jong Un Trying to Tell Donald Trump Something?

    By Katelyn Fossett
    GettyImages-103754064.jpg
    The President Needs a Psychiatrist

    By Alex Thompson

House Republicans and Donald Trump's team are coalescing around a multi-billion dollar plan to make good on the president-elect's campaign vows to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, according to top Republican lawmakers and aides.

Republican leaders, in tandem with Trump’s transition staff, are considering using a 2006 law signed by former President George W. Bush that authorized the construction of 700 miles-plus of “physical barrier” on the southern border. The law was never fully implemented and did not include a sunset provision, allowing Trump to pick up where Bush left off — with the help of new money from Congress.

Yet the plan could potentially provoke a showdown with Democrats over government funding. Republicans are considering whether to tuck the border wall funding into a must-pass spending bill that must be enacted by the end of April. GOP lawmakers and aides believe they could win a public relations war over the matter by daring Democrats — particularly vulnerable red-state senators up for reelection next year — to shutter the government over one of Trump’s most popular campaign pledges.

Bolstering their cause is a long list of Senate Democrats who voted for the border measure a decade ago, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — making it harder for Democrats to say no now, Republicans believe.

“There’s already in existing law the authorization for hundreds of miles of build out on the southern border … so, one important step in the right direction will be funding the existing law and beginning the building out of hundreds of miles of wall, or fence, on the southern border,” said House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Luke Messer (Ind.).
170105_trump_phone_AP_1160.jpg

Presidential Transition
Trump’s Twitter feed traumatizes Washington

By Eli Stokols and Josh Dawsey

The Indiana Republican added: “If tied to the rest of government funding, it’s much harder for the Democrats to stop, and by the way, I think it’s much harder for Democrats to vote against it if what you’re doing is authorizing funding for an existing law.”

The plan is an implicit acknowledgment by Republicans and the incoming administration that Mexico will not pay for the border wall — a promise from Trump that was always viewed skeptically. Instead, American tax dollars will.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads

The tentative plan would likely be just a piece of a broader, multiyear border security strategy, which Capitol Hill Republicans are still hashing out. They’re already framing the spring cash infusion — which could total hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars — as a “down payment” on Trump’s “build-the-wall” platform. That pledge vaulted the New Yorker from afterthought to front-runner in last year’s crowded GOP presidential primary.

Multiple Republican sources said the House will also likely pass a border-security package sometime later in the spring or summer. The plan could meld new provisions to older bills passed by the House and the Homeland Security Committee in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

The cost of a border wall is potentially enormous, with estimates ranging from a few billion dollars to $14 billion. And that’s just for constructing the wall or fence; it does not include a range of other expenses, from maintenance to border patrol agents to purchasing private property from Texas landowners.

Still, House Republicans feel they need to give Trump the tools he needs to carry out his wall promise as quickly as possible. The proposal under discussion could offer a way to produce legislation within his first 100 days in office.
06_Donald_Trump_13_gty_1160.jpg

Trumponomics
How Trump Could Declare a Trade Emergency

By Todd Tucker

“I think the sooner Republicans can get it done the better because [Trump] made such an issue out of it,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee who offered the 2006 bill currently under consideration.

The 2006 Secure Fence Act, included as part of a broader immigration reform package, originally called for 850 miles of double fencing along the nearly 2,000-mile southern border. Lawmakers amended the law in 2008 to reduce the length to a minimum of 700 miles, a change that also gave the secretary of Homeland Security discretion over what kind of “physical barrier” to construct.

Ultimately, only 36 miles of double-layer fencing was erected. U.S. Customs and Border Protection built roughly 350 miles of single-layer pedestrian fences, most which stand about 18 feet, and 300 miles of low-level vehicle barriers that any person could easily walk through, according to sources following the matter.

Facing heavy complains from the Mexican government and immigrant groups, the Bush and Obama administrations pushed for a "virtual fence" on much of the border area using towers and surveillance sensors to provide security. They argued that it was a much more cost-effective approach for the physically challenging terrain. More than $3 billion was spent on the project over time. Homeland Security froze the "virtual fence" project in 2010.

Because the 2006 law included a floor on fencing miles, not a ceiling, and since it also allows the Department of Homeland Security to determine what kinds of structures to build, Capitol Hill Republicans believe Trump already has all the authority he needs to start construction of a wall.
12_donald_trump_34_ap_1160.jpg

Presidential Transition
Trump sits for sworn deposition in Trump Tower

By Josh Gerstein

All they have to do is fund it.

One of their biggest challenges in doing so will be Senate Democrats. To clear the upper chamber's 60-vote legislative threshold, Republicans will need eight Democrats to back the measure.

GOP insiders plan to pressure Democrats who voted for the original law to get in line with their plan. Schumer and Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Tom Carper of Delaware all voted for the legislation a decade ago. So, too, did then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But the dynamics on immigration and border security have shifted dramatically since then. Democrats nowadays want comprehensive immigration reform to accompany any fortifications of the border. That sweeping approach would include a pathway to citizenship, which is extremely unlikely to happen under Trump.

It’s one of the reasons Republicans may slip the funding into must-pass spending legislation. The government is currently operating on a stopgap “continuing resolution,” which expires at the end of April, so they'll have to fund the government for the rest of the year by then.
Former Sen. Dan Coats is pictured. | Getty

Trump to tap ex-Sen. Dan Coats as intelligence chief

By Eric Geller and Cory Bennett

Other wall funding vehicles being considered include the 2018 appropriations bill for Homeland Security and a standalone legislative package. There are legislative hurdles to both those approaches as well.

Republicans could also run into roadblocks within their own party. For one, the price tag could be a major issue with the far right. A new, yet-to-be-released Government Accountability Office study estimates the cost of a single layer fence at $6.5 million per mile, or $10.4 million per mile for a double-layer fence.

Insiders say Customs and Border Protection, at the request of the incoming Trump administration, has identified about 400 miles on the U.S.-Mexico border where structures could be erected or need to be fortified. Should Trump line that with double-layer fencing, for example, the cost would be about $4.2 billion.

Conservatives are bound to demand any such cost be offset, another potential hurdle. Republicans could also face an uphill battle with Republicans from border towns, whose constituents would likely grumble at construction projects running through their backyards. There are also eminent domain wrinkles to iron out, as the government will have to purchase land from Texans to construct the project.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on January 06, 2017, 03:18:30 AM
WSJ fake news, followed by Daily Mail truth !!  Whatever next.   :o
Or it could be that both have it right - Donald IS going to do it, but doesn't want to be assassinated before he takes office, so he IS denying it.

Trump has already quoted Julian Assange to help his case, why not Snowden?  Then he could reorganise NSA, pardon Snowden and make him head of NSA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-overhaul-top-intelligence-agencies-cia-dni-2017-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-overhaul-top-intelligence-agencies-cia-dni-2017-1)
Report: Trump plans to shrink top intelligence agencies, including CIA
Mark Abadi
Jan. 4, 2017

President-elect Donald Trump is planning to restructure two of the nation's top intelligence agencies, according to a Wall Street Journal report (http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450) [paywall] published Wednesday.

The newspaper writes that Trump plans to reduce the size of the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, fearing the agencies have become too large and politicized.

"The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized," The Journal quoted someone close to Trump's transition team as saying. "They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact."

The apparent plans come as Trump continues to mock US intelligence agencies and dismiss their reports that Russia hacked and leaked emails from Democratic officials in an attempt to influence the US election.

President Barack Obama late last year instructed the DNI to investigate potential meddling in US presidential elections dating back to 2008 amid the findings.

Trump cited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday in his latest dismissal of the cyberattacks. Assange had denied Russia was the source of the stolen emails in an interview with Fox News.

The president-elect's comments angered lawmakers from both parties concerned that the incoming president appeared to trust Assange over top US intelligence officials.

"We have two choices — some guy living in an embassy on the run from the law … who has a history of undermining American democracy and releasing classified information to put our troops at risk, or the 17 intelligence agencies sworn to defend us," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.

"I’m going with them."

    I don't believe any American should give a whole lot of credibility to anything Julian Assange says. No American should be duped by him.
    — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 4, 2017



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090036/Trump-cut-staff-CIA-headquarters-trim-Office-Director-National-Intelligence-intelligence-world-politicized.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090036/Trump-cut-staff-CIA-headquarters-trim-Office-Director-National-Intelligence-intelligence-world-politicized.html)
Trump camp denies '100 per cent false' report president-elect plans to cut CIA staff and 'restructure' agency amid fears of 'politicized' agency following Russian hacking saga
David Martosko, US Political Editor and James Wilkinson For Dailymail.com
5 January 2017

Donald Trump's chief spokesman said Thursday that there's 'no truth' to a news report describing a plan by the president-elect to downsize the CIA's headquarters and 'restructure' America's intelligence agencies in order to de-politicize them. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump and his national security team were set to move more CIA agents to foreign posts along with 'streamlining' the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But in a conference call with reporters, Trump's incoming press secretary Sean Spicer completely denied the story, which was based on anonymous sources who claimed to have inside knowledge of the transition team's intentions.

'These reports are false. All transition activities are for information gathering purposes and all discussions are tentative,' Spicer said.
Donald Trump will not be cutting or restructuring the CIA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, his spokesman said Thursday, denying a Wall Street Journal report

'The president-elect's top priority will be to ensure the safety of the American people and the security of the nation, and he is committed to finding the best and most effective way to do it.'

'There is no truth to this idea of restructuring the intelligence community infrastructure. It is 100 per cent false,' Spicer reiterated. 

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy on January 06, 2017, 03:24:41 AM
Quote
   
Quote
There are going to have to be LOTS of people (corporatists) taken out of the game by being arrested and locked up in stadiums - ALL of the Administration, Congress, Treasury, the banks, the judges, media proprietors, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security.

And who will pay to feed these locked up Pigmen?  ???  :icon_scratch:  And why?

Don't stadiums have their own catering?  I assume they can live on hot dogs and beer until their trial sometime in 2047.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 06, 2017, 08:56:15 AM
" ... sometime in 2047."   --- LOL!


Speaking of things hilarious, check this out!


Special Report: The Second American Revolution Has Begun » Alex ...
www.infowars.com/special-report-the-second-american-revolution-has-begun/ (http://www.infowars.com/special-report-the-second-american-revolution-has-begun/)
Mar 2, 2016 - Special Report: The Second American Revolution Has Begun. The Trump movement is a peaceful, populist revolt against the elite. Alex Jones ...
http://www.infowars.com/special-report-the-second-american-revolution-has-begun/ (http://www.infowars.com/special-report-the-second-american-revolution-has-begun/)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 06, 2017, 09:02:40 AM
The Trump movement is a peaceful, populist revolt against the elite.

And so Trump finds his own personal Goebbels. It would be funny if I weren't so scared.
Title: Kerry: Mexico won’t ‘pony up’ for Trump’s wall
Post by: RE on January 06, 2017, 03:37:27 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/international/americas/313134-kerry-mexico-wont-pony-up-for-trumps-wall (http://thehill.com/policy/international/americas/313134-kerry-mexico-wont-pony-up-for-trumps-wall)
This is starting to look like the greatest Bondoggle/Pork Barrel project in all of recorded history!  :o

Even after they build it, can you imagine the MAINTENANCE  costs on this White Elephant?  You don't think Mexicans will be hitting it daily with wire cutters on the fence portions?

RE

http://thehill.com/policy/international/americas/313134-kerry-mexico-wont-pony-up-for-trumps-wall (http://thehill.com/policy/international/americas/313134-kerry-mexico-wont-pony-up-for-trumps-wall)

Kerry: Mexico won’t ‘pony up’ for Trump’s wall
By Mark Hensch - 01/06/17 06:13 PM EST

Secretary of State John Kerry says Mexico will not foot the bill for President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed wall along its border with the U.S.

“They’ve said they’re not going to pay for it,” he told ABC News’s Martha Raddatz Friday. "They’re not going to voluntarily pony up and pay for something they disagree with.”

“I said voluntarily. I suppose you can create something and make a pretense that it’s them doing it. Let’s wait and see what other choices are made.”

Trump said earlier Friday that taxpayer money will accelerate the construction of his proposed barrier along the nation’s southern border.

“[It is] in order to speed up the process,” he told The New York Times. "We’re going to get reimbursed. But I don’t want to wait that long. But you start, and then you get reimbursed.”

Trump added that he would most likely recoup U.S. tax dollars by renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico’s government.

“It’s going to be a part of everything,” he said. "We are going to be making a much better deal. It’s a deal that never should have been signed.”

Reports emerged Thursday that Trump’s team and GOP House lawmakers have begun discussing a plan to build the president-elect’s border wall using American tax dollars. Republican leaders purportedly hope to fund the project using the appropriations process as early as April.

Trump’s team is reportedly citing a 2006 law as authority for constructing the structure, but the funding for it remains unclear.

The measure in question — which was signed by former President George W. Bush — authorized a more than 700-mile “physical barrier” between the U.S. and Mexico. The law was never fully implemented, and lawmakers can resume where it left over as it never contained a sunset provision.

Trump previously pledged that Mexico would ultimately cover the wall’s cost, a promise he reiterated Friday.

“The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid by Mexico later," he tweeted.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 06, 2017, 05:39:15 PM
I think I figured it out. 

Work visas will be granted so Mexicans can come to America to work and then send money home as they have for generations.  Trump will simply make the illegals legal and get a percentage of their earnings from which they will pay for the wall.  Trump wants to bring jobs to America and make America great again but he really does not care that Americans fill the jobs.  Why would he?  Trump is a member of the rentier class and always has been comfortable being one.  Some imagined logic had to be behind Trumps statements about the wall and the fact that he won't explain how Mexicans will pay for the wall means that he knows his reasons will be unpopular.  When Mexican maids fill all his hotels at seven bucks an hour he will take great satisfaction because America will be great for him and a buck of that hours wage will be paying for the wall.

It will begin by pretending to get tough and upping up deportations.  The purpose will be so that when the same people are let back in with work visas they will have to pay an entrance fee courtesy of Trump as their new Coyote.  For a brief period of time Trump may have to pay twelve bucks an hour until enough Mexicans come back in but it won't be for long.  This will be a Goldilocks period in which Americans will approve of Trump not realizing what he is up to.  Many will relax thinking the Trumppocalypse isn't really so bad.  Then the hammer comes down.

(http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/border-wall1.jpg)

Quote
Trump previously pledged that Mexico would ultimately cover the wall’s cost, a promise he reiterated Friday.

I really do think this explains the wall payment mystery.  It also reveals what goes on in that woolly mammoth brain.  Run with part of the truth to get as much mileage as you can from a palatable but distorted truth and then shut the mouth down before you say too much.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Surly1 on January 07, 2017, 02:44:18 AM
I think I figured it out. 

Work visas will be granted so Mexicans can come to America to work and then send money home as they have for generations.  Trump will simply make the illegals legal and get a percentage of their earnings from which they will pay for the wall.  Trump wants to bring jobs to America and make America great again but he really does not care that Americans fill the jobs.  Why would he?  Trump is a member of the rentier class and always has been comfortable being one.  Some imagined logic had to be behind Trumps statements about the wall and the fact that he won't explain how Mexicans will pay for the wall means that he knows his reasons will be unpopular.  When Mexican maids fill all his hotels at seven bucks an hour he will take great satisfaction because America will be great for him and a buck of that hours wage will be paying for the wall.

It will begin by pretending to get tough and upping up deportations.  The purpose will be so that when the same people are let back in with work visas they will have to pay an entrance fee courtesy of Trump as their new Coyote.  For a brief period of time Trump may have to pay twelve bucks an hour until enough Mexicans come back in but it won't be for long.  This will be a Goldilocks period in which Americans will approve of Trump not realizing what he is up to.  Many will relax thinking the Trumppocalypse isn't really so bad.  Then the hammer comes down.

(http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/border-wall1.jpg)

Quote
Trump previously pledged that Mexico would ultimately cover the wall’s cost, a promise he reiterated Friday.

I really do think this explains the wall payment mystery.  It also reveals what goes on in that woolly mammoth brain.  Run with part of the truth to get as much mileage as you can from a palatable but distorted truth and then shut the mouth down before you say too much.

There are several vectors in which Trump can "get Mexico to pay:" remittance seizure, potential tariffs and foreign aid cuts, increasing fees on temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats, increasing fees on border crossing cards, increasing fees on NAFTA worker visas; and increasing fees at ports of entry to the US from Mexico. Drops in the bucket relative to the cost, but Trump can point to them as he beats his chest with those tiny fists.

And in terms of managing costs, there is always slave labor.

Massachusetts sheriff offers prison inmates to build Trump's wall (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inmates-idUSKBN14P1N7?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social)

(http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170105&t=2&i=1167707315&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPED040VX)
File Photo: A general view shows a newly built section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall at Sunland Park, U.S. opposite the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, November 9, 2016. Picture taken from the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez/File Photo
</div>
 
By Scott Malone | BOSTON

A Massachusetts county sheriff has proposed sending prison inmates from around the United States to build the proposed wall along the Mexican border that is one of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's most prominent campaign promises.

"I can think of no other project that would have such a positive impact on our inmates and our country than building this wall," Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said at his swearing-in ceremony for a fourth term in office late Wednesday. 

"Aside from learning and perfecting construction skills, the symbolism of these inmates building a wall to prevent crime in communities around the country, and to preserve jobs and work opportunities for them and other Americans upon release, can be very powerful," he said.

Hodgson, who like Trump is a Republican, said inmates from around the country could build the proposed wall, described by Trump as a powerful deterrent to illegal immigration.

Trump, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, insisted during his campaign that he would convince the Mexican government to pay for the wall, though Mexican officials have repeatedly said they would not do so.

Officials in the Trump transition office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The United States has a long history of prison labor, with advocates of the idea saying that putting inmates to work can help them learn skills that prepare them for their return to society after completing their sentences. Opponents contend that inmates are not fairly compensated.

The federal prisons system operates some 53 factories around the United States that produced about $500 million worth of clothing, electronics, furniture and other goods in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, according to its financial statements.

Still, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts said Hodgson's proposal could violate prisoners' rights.

"The proposal is perverse, it's inhumane and very likely unconstitutional," ACLU staff counsel Laura Rotolo said in a phone interview. "It certainly has nothing to do with helping prisoners in Massachusetts or their families. It's about politics."

In response to a request by the Trump transition office, the Department of Homeland Security last month identified more than 400 miles (644 km) along the U.S.-Mexico border where new fencing could be erected, according to a document seen by Reuters. 

The document contained an estimate that building that section of fence would cost more than $11 billion.

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on January 07, 2017, 07:24:17 AM
Trump's not building this wall to keep the Mexican's out, he's building it to keep us in. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 07, 2017, 11:22:46 AM
Trump's not building this wall to keep the Mexican's out, he's building it to keep us in.

Then he should fortify the Canadian border.
Title: Marine Le Pen at Trump Tower: Only for the food?
Post by: RE on January 12, 2017, 10:47:01 PM
If you had any doubt about which side of the Fascist-Communist divide Trumpty-Dumpty is on, this should settle the question.

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/12/marine-le-pen-at-trump-tower-only-for-the-food/?utm_term=.486bcbc76136 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/12/marine-le-pen-at-trump-tower-only-for-the-food/?utm_term=.486bcbc76136)

WorldViews
Marine Le Pen at Trump Tower: Only for the food?
By James McAuley January 12 at 1:54 PM

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/11/09/Foreign/Images/AFP_HX6Q1-4190.jpg&w=1484)
Marine Le Pen speaks during a news conference Nov. 9, 2016, in Nanterre, France. /AFP Photo/Martin Bureau/ AFP/Getty Images

PARIS — Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front and a contender in the country’s upcoming presidential election, was seen at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Thursday.

The details of Le Pen’s visit were not immediately. According to a media pool report, she declined to say whether she would meet with Donald Trump while she was there.

Aides to the president-elect quickly insisted that she would not: Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, subsequently retweeted a CNN report in which he had said that Le Pen would meet neither with Trump nor any members of his transition team.

Today's WorldView

What's most important from where the world meets Washington

“Trump tower is open to the public,” Spicer said.

This picture distributed courtesy of the U.S. president-elect transition pool reporter Samuel Levine shows far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, right, when spotted at Donald Trump's New York headquarters building on Jan. 12, 2017 having coffee at Trump Ice Cream Parlor on the ground floor of Trump Tower, with three men including her partner Louis Aliot, second right. (Samuel Levine/AFP/Getty Images)

And yet Le Pen’s visit fits into a recurring pattern of the Trump transition period: a foreign populist leader somehow appearing at Trump’s headquarters before the president-elect has met with the actual leaders of the countries concerned.

Just three days after the U.S. election, Trump received Nigel Farage, the interim head of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the principal advocate of the “Brexit” campaign for Britain to leave the European Union.

Furthermore, Le Pen has been among the most vocal foreign supporters of Trump since his election, heralding his victory as a democratic choice that could “bury the old order” and serve as a steppingstone to “building tomorrow’s world.”

As a candidate in France’s upcoming presidential election in late April and early May, Le Pen has couched her campaign as a potential next chapter in the populist wave in the Western world that fueled the Brexit vote and Trump’s victory.

Aside from her appearance Thursday morning in Trump Tower’s basement cafeteria, links between Le Pen’s campaign and the Trump team had already been established. In November, Stephen Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News and now Trump’s chief strategist, reached out to the Le Pen family in hopes of “working together.”

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, the niece of Marine Le Pen, wrote on Twitter in November that she enthusiastically accepted Bannon’s invitation.

On the eve of the French presidential election, ties between the formerly fringe National Front party and the president-elect of the United States immediately caused significant anxiety.

Thursday’s reports of Le Pen's appearance at Trump Tower fanned fears that her platform — marked by hostility to immigrants, the desire to cozy up to Vladimir Putin’s Russia and a dogged insistence on taking France out of the European Union — could soon be legitimized.

Although an actual meeting between Trump and Le Pen could not be confirmed, political analysts in Paris said they worry more about the likely alliance to come, especially after Trump’s inauguration next week.

For Dominique Moïsi, co-founder of the French Center for International Relations (IFRI), this "would be the end of the transatlantic alliance, and the end of the European Union as a club of values." He added, "It would be the end of a period, the end of a world.”

For the moment, Le Pen is rising in opinion polls in advance of the French election. She appears likely to reach the second and final round of the vote.

Read more:

Can Trump’s win boost France’s far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen?

Marine Le Pen could win the French election — but first she must win a family feud

Meet the European leaders hoping to cause the next Brexit
Title: This former British spy was identified as the Trump dossier source. Now he is in
Post by: RE on January 13, 2017, 07:10:39 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/12/this-former-british-spy-was-identified-as-the-trump-dossier-source-now-he-is-in-hiding/?utm_term=.019a91d877c6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/12/this-former-british-spy-was-identified-as-the-trump-dossier-source-now-he-is-in-hiding/?utm_term=.019a91d877c6)

This former British spy was identified as the Trump dossier source. Now he is in hiding.
By Karla Adam January 12 at 7:25 PM
Former British spy named as author of reports on Donald Trump in Russia
Play Video1:29
Christopher Steele, who wrote reports on compromising material Russian operatives allegedly collected on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, is a former officer in Britain's MI-6, according to people familiar with his career. (Reuters)

LONDON — The former British intelligence officer who had a key role in drafting the dossier that alleged Russia holds compromising material and information on President-elect Donald Trump has gone into hiding, according to British reports.

Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer and the director of a private-sector security firm in London, was named as the author of the 35-page packet making the explosive — and unsubstantiated — claims.

[Decision to brief Trump on allegations brought a secret and unsubstantiated dossier into the public domain]

WorldViews newsletter

Important stories from around the world.

According to British media reports, Steele, 52, fled his home in Runfold, a village about 40 miles southwest of London on Wednesday evening after he had been identified earlier in the day in a Wall Street Journal report.

Before leaving his residence, Steele called his next-door neighbor Mike Hopper and asked if he could look after his three cats. Steele moved in about 18 months ago with his wife and four kids, his neighbor said.

“He has asked me to do that sort of thing before, so I didn’t take it as anything different. I was just about ready to go to work, and he called me and asked me to come in, gave me the key to the house. … He said that the family would be away for a while, would I mind looking after the animals?” Hopper said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Steele didn’t say where he was going or when he would be back, Hopper said.

The Guardian reported that Steele, a Cambridge University graduate, “was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service,” better known as MI6, and had spent two years in Moscow in the 1990s. The newspaper said he was a contemporary and friend of Alex Younger, who now heads MI6, and at one point Steele was in charge of the service’s Russia desk.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said Wednesday night that U.S. spy agencies “had not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable.” But U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, have said that Steele’s source network was viewed as credible.

A summary of the document was attached to a classified report on Russian interference in the presidential election that was given to President Obama and Trump. FBI Director James B. Comey pulled Trump aside at the briefing with intelligence chiefs in New York and told him about the attached summary, according to a U.S. official. CNN first reported the exchange.

The president-elect described the allegations as “all fake news — phony stuff” and said it was “a disgrace that that information would be let out.”

Steele’s London-based firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, was launched in 2009 by former British intelligence professionals, according to its website. The private intelligence outfit is located in an upscale area in London, not far from Buckingham Palace, and has a “global network of senior associates.”

“We provide strategic advice, mount intelligence-gathering operations and conduct complex, often cross-border investigations,” the firm says on its site.

Neither Steele nor his fellow director, Chris Burrows, could be reached for comment.

While Steele’s name was first published in the United States, the British media — not usually known for restraint — held off for several hours.
In Britain, there is a long-standing tacit agreement between the government and media whereby the media receives a notice — known officially as a “Defense and Security Media Advisory Notice” — and agrees not to publish certain information relating to national security. The system has been in place for decades and is purely voluntary.

The British media received such a notice last night, just after 6:30 p.m. local time.

“In view of media stories alleging that a former SIS officer was the source of the information which allegedly compromises President-elect Donald Trump would you and your journalists please seek my advice before making public that name,” wrote Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the Defense and Security Media Advisory Committee, the body that issued the media notice.

“Irrespective of whether or not the stories are true, the public disclosure of that name would put the personal security of that individual directly at risk,” he wrote.

But after Steele’s name started appearing in the U.S. media, “it then became increasingly difficult to hold that line,” Vallance said in an interview.

He said his committee sent around another notice advising the British media to hold off until 10 p.m., thus allowing time for the former agent to “make arrangements for personal security.

Ellen Nakashima in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more:

Meet the pro-Russian, anti-Muslim European leader who was just invited to Trump’s White House

If Russia Today is Moscow’s propaganda arm, it’s not very good at its job

Marine Le Pen at Trump Tower: Only for the food?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 13, 2017, 11:03:15 AM
Concerning:

Quote
This former British spy was identified as the Trump dossier source. Now he is in hiding.
By Karla Adam January 12 at 7:25 PM
Former British spy named as author of reports on Donald Trump in Russia

1) Nothing is going to be put out in the WAPO without deep state approval or direct authorship by them.

2) British and American intelligence agencies are joined at the hip.

3) Christopher Steele, is former MI6 but most likely still feeds at the same trough.

4) " The president-elect described the allegations as “all fake news — phony stuff” and said it was “a disgrace that that information would be let out.” "

Number 4 is interesting, rebellion perhaps?  Not for sure though.  It could also mean that Trump has been told things about 'fake news' that we will never know.  He may have been turned to the deep dark side. 

Imagine Trump as the headliner in a rock concert.  This week we see cover bands warm up the crowd before the main act walks out onto the stage.  Nobody knows what his opening song is going to be about except that it will be a new ballad.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffootage.framepool.com%2Fshotimg%2F532126266-pluesch-concert-hall-rock-concert-stage-performance.jpg&f=1)

Will the new ballad be about the same old false narratives, new false narratives?  It may be new unexampled perhaps disgusting cogitations congenitally twisted by strange convoluted folds deep within the cauldron of Trumps brain.  Something you would not want to see if you could lift up his carrot top and take a peek inside.

Time will tell.  We are past the sound checks.  We will soon hear what it will be.

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 13, 2017, 06:18:41 PM
Tillerson (Sec of State elect) sounded one mean son of a bitch during his hearing.  Suggesting China should be stopped from going to its artificial islands in South China Sea, and believing the DNC hack was done by Putin.

I can see Trump saying "Well, I tried to be friends with him, but he lied to me, so now its WW3."  Every last hope of something good coming out of the next 4 years evaporating.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 13, 2017, 06:36:23 PM
Tillerson (Sec of State elect) sounded one mean son of a bitch during his hearing.  Suggesting China should be stopped from going to its artificial islands in South China Sea, and believing the DNC hack was done by Putin.

I can see Trump saying "Well, I tried to be friends with him, but he lied to me, so now its WW3."  Every last hope of something good coming out of the next 4 years evaporating.

Rex wants the OIL under the South China Sea.  If it takes Nukes to get that Oil for Exxon-Mobil, they'll use Nukes.

RE
Title: Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance
Post by: RE on January 14, 2017, 04:34:54 PM
Can't wait until the first Deportations get rolling.  That should rev things up a bit.

RE

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/protesters-trump-bury-statue-liberty-44778461 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/protesters-trump-bury-statue-liberty-44778461)

Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Teheran_US_embassy_propaganda_statue_of_liberty.jpg/512px-Teheran_US_embassy_propaganda_statue_of_liberty.jpg)

    By ben nuckols, associated press

WASHINGTON — Jan 14, 2017, 6:40 PM ET

Protesters gathered Saturday to support immigrant rights at rallies around the U.S., denouncing President-elect Donald Trump for his anti-immigrant rhetoric and his pledges to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and to crack down on Muslims entering the country.

"We are not going to allow Donald Trump to bury the Statue of Liberty," Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, told a standing-room-only crowd at historic African-American church in downtown Washington during one of dozens of rallies around the nation.

In Chicago, more than 1,000 people poured into a teachers' union hall to support immigrant rights and implore one another to fight for those rights against what they fear will be a hostile Trump administration.

Ron Taylor, pastor of a Chicago-area Disciples for Christ Church and executive director of the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, told the audience there, "Regardless of what happens in the coming days we know that good will conquer evil and we want to say to each and every one of you, you are not alone."

In Los Angeles, several hundred people rallied at a downtown Mexican-American cultural center and plaza. Some carried signs saying "Here to Stay" and chanted "Si se puede," Spanish for "Yes, we can."

The protests mark the latest chapter in a movement that has evolved since 2006, when more than a million people took to the streets to protest a Republican-backed immigration bill that would have made it a crime to be in the country illegally.

Saturday's events in in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Jose, California, and elsewhere took place as thousands participated in a "We Shall Not Be Moved" march and rally in Washington ahead of Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday.

The line to enter Metropolitan AME Church in Washington stretched nearly a city block. People attending included immigrants who lack permission to be in the country and their relatives and supporters. Also present were elected officials, clergy and representatives of labor and women's groups.

Participants carried signs with messages including "Resist Trump's Hate" and "Tu, Yo, Todos Somos America," which translates to "You, me, we all are America."

"I stand here because I have nothing to apologize for. I am not ashamed of my status because it is a constant reminder to myself that I have something to fight for," said Max Kim, 19, who was brought to the U.S. from South Korea when he was 6 and lacks legal permission to stay in the country.

The Washington crowd urged Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress not to undo the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, aimed at helping people like Kim who were brought to the country as children.

Michael Takada of the Japanese American Service Committee urged the Chicago audience to "disrupt the deportation machine" that he and others fear will ramp up under the new president. He also urged them to keep a close eye on their local police departments and speak out if they see those departments help "ICE to deport our community members."

Dr. Bassam Osman, chair and co-founder of The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, elicited one of the loudest cheers from the crowd when he called out the president-elect by name in an opening prayer: "Lord, this land is your land, it is not Trump's land."

While there was plenty of cheering, there was also uneasiness and fear of what's to come after Trump is sworn in.

Rehab Alkadi, a 31-year-old mother of a young son who came to the United States four years ago from war-torn Syria, said she doesn't believe she can be deported because "there is a war in Syria, but who knows. It's so scary, what Trump says," she said. "He said a lot of things bad about the Muslim people."

In Los Angeles, Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said, "We put the Trump administration on notice that we're not going to sit idly by while he destroys our community."

President Barack Obama in 2012 launched an executive effort to protect some young immigrants from deportation, after multiple proposals failed in Congress.

The creation of the DACA program was heralded as a good first step by advocates who hoped it would be a prelude toward overhauling immigration laws. But that didn't happen, and Republican-led states pushed back against Obama's plans to expand the program.

Now the focus is on the next administration. As a candidate, Trump promised his supporters stepped-up deportations and a Mexican-funded border wall, but it is unclear which plans the celebrity businessman will act on first, and when. And many immigrants are fearful of the campaign rhetoric but less motivated to protest in the absence of specific actions.

Many participants Saturday said they would keep the pressure on Trump and said they planned to participate in next Saturday's Women's March on Washington.

"The threat of deportation is imminent for our communities," said Cristina Jimenez, executive director of United We Dream and one of the rally's organizers. "We will keep fighting. We're not going back into the shadows."

———

Associated Press writers Don Babwin in Chicago and Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this story.
Title: Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We'll respond 'immediately'
Post by: RE on January 14, 2017, 04:55:19 PM
The Tariffs may be even more fun than the immigration policies!

The Mexicans will retaliate by dumping Ganga at cheap prices and destroying the incipient Ganga industry in the FSoA.

Good Newz for Pot Smokers, you'll be able to pick up a baggy of sinsemilla buds for $10/oz.  :icon_sunny:

(http://www.growingmarijuana.com/images/monitoring-buds.png)

RE

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/14/news/economy/donald-trump-mexico-tariffs-response/ (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/14/news/economy/donald-trump-mexico-tariffs-response/)

Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We'll respond 'immediately'
by Patrick Gillespie   @CNNMoney January 14, 2017: 1:58 PM ET
NAFTA explained
NAFTA explained
Mexico's economy minister sent Donald Trump a fighting message: We will retaliate right away if you hit us with a "major border tax."

"It's very clear that we have to be prepared to immediately be able to neutralize the impact of a measure of that nature," economy minister Ildefonso Guajardo said Friday on a Mexican news show.

Guajardo also predicted that Trump's threat of a 35% tariff against Mexico, if carried out, would result in a "global recession" because it would inhibit companies from producing outside the U.S.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
SmartAsset.com

"It would be a problem for the entire world," Guajardo warned. A Trump tariff "will have a wave of impacts that can take us into a global recession," Guajardo said, speaking in Spanish.

In recent weeks, Trump has zeroed in on companies manufacturing in Mexico and selling products in the United States, threatening them with a "major border tax" of 35%.

Related: Remove cars and U.S.-Mexico deficit 'vanishes'

In tweets, Trump has singled out GM and Toyota as potential targets, though he indicated in a December tweet the tax would apply to all businesses, not just automakers.

And during his first press conference Wednesday since winning the election, Trump doubled down on his threat.

"There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder," Trump said Wednesday.

Guajardo noted that Toyota has extensive U.S. operations and employs a lot of American workers.

"If I were Mr. Trump, I'd treat them with more respect," Guajardo said.

Trump's economic advisers have said they will use the threat of tariffs to get a better trade deal with Mexico. They've indicated renegotiating NAFTA, the free trade deal between Canada, Mexico and the U.S., is a Day 1 priority. Mexico's President, Enrique Pena Nieto, said he's open to "modernizing" NAFTA.

Related: Republican senator aims to curtail Trump's tariff power

Mexico heavily depends on trade with the United States to drive its economy and create jobs. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico.

Trade experts on both sides of the border warn that stiff tariffs would risk jobs in both countries.

Guajardo didn't say exactly how Mexico would hit back.

"There are ways -- it's very clear how -- to take a fiscal action that clearly neutralizes it," Guajardo said.

Trump's threats have already weighed on Mexico. The peso plunged after the election and remains near an all-time low. Mexico's central bank dimmed its economic forecast this year, citing the U.S. election outcome.
Title: Re: Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance
Post by: K-Dog on January 14, 2017, 11:20:49 PM
Can't wait until the first Deportations get rolling.  That should rev things up a bit.

RE

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/protesters-trump-bury-statue-liberty-44778461 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/protesters-trump-bury-statue-liberty-44778461)

Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance


As of 2015, more than 2.5 million people have been deported since President Obama took office in 2009.  A record-setting total.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/ (http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/)

It is all theater and now there are two kinds of people.  Those who know it is theater and those who don't.  That article about the protesters would have you believe that the author can be in three places at once so as to count the number of people in the crowds he claims.
Quote
In Chicago, more than 1,000 people poured into a teachers' union hall to support immigrant rights.
In Los Angeles, several hundred people rallied at a downtown Mexican-American cultural center and plaza.
The line to enter Metropolitan AME Church in Washington stretched nearly a city block.

This author can fly like a drone.  Can a drone fly that fast?   Smearing Trump is fine if it is done honestly, but this author lacks honesty.  This ABC 'fake news'.

Of those 'who don't' the ones who are manipulated to become pawns against their own interests are the most disgusting.
Title: Re: Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We'll respond 'immediately'
Post by: K-Dog on January 15, 2017, 12:01:43 AM
The Tariffs may be even more fun than the immigration policies!

The Mexicans will retaliate by dumping Ganga at cheap prices and destroying the incipient Ganga industry in the FSoA.

Good Newz for Pot Smokers, you'll be able to pick up a baggy of sinsemilla buds for $10/oz.  :icon_sunny:

(http://www.growingmarijuana.com/images/monitoring-buds.png)

RE


I don't think it could be profitable at that price.  If grown indoors the electricity alone would be that much and trimming buds is a labor intensive activity.  If it were grown outdoors it has to be stored at the end of a growing season after it is trimmed before being smuggled up on a regular schedule.  To build up enough weed to begin any dumping strategy would take at least a year.  The act of smuggling is not without significant cost and smuggling limits shipment size.  Considering that the final distributor needs to make a profit street prices would have a very hard time going below $40 an oz.

Areas which have legalized recreational use are able to compete at that price.  All dumping would do is force legal domestic production down to a reasonable price.  Because of its tax load the price for legal would be forced to bottom into the $40 an oz. range.  Taxes basically replacing the cost of smuggling and giving the consumer a slightly better deal after giving farmers a reasonable profit.  Any loss in tax revenue by a price war would be recouped by reduced cost of intra-diction efforts after Mexico realizes it is fighting a losing battle.  Mexico would then have to give weed away for free to impact American domestic production.  Which they can't do.  Smuggling would then stop.  Dumping can't kill the incipient marijuana industry but the potfolio would take a hit for a while.

(http://bigbudsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/marijuana-grow-rooms-1024x768.jpg)

http://bigbudsmag.com/tag/math/ (http://bigbudsmag.com/tag/math/)

Title: Re: Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance
Post by: RE on January 15, 2017, 03:37:34 AM

This author can fly like a drone.  Can a drone fly that fast?

Oh come on.  The reporter could have sources that were at both locations and written the story based on interviewing them.  He didn't necessarily ever have to leave his office at all.

RE
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty Press Conference: SNL Version
Post by: RE on January 15, 2017, 06:23:36 AM
Best Parody so far IMHO.  Alec Baldwin is gonna do real well with this impersonation...as long as he lives anyhow. lol.

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/4_Gf0mGJfP8
Title: Re: Protesters Across US Decry Trump's Anti-Immigrant Stance
Post by: K-Dog on January 15, 2017, 11:06:33 AM

This author can fly like a drone.  Can a drone fly that fast?

Oh come on.  The reporter could have sources that were at both locations and written the story based on interviewing them.  He didn't necessarily ever have to leave his office at all.

RE

I stand corrected at the bottom of the article two correspondents are listed.

Quote
Associated Press writers Don Babwin in Chicago and Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

And between these three they knew about yet still another city and elsewhere as well.

Quote
Saturday's events in in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Jose, California, and elsewhere took place as thousands participated in a "We Shall Not Be Moved" march and rally in Washington ahead of Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday.

I think the dog is being wagged.

(http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group1/building2664/media/cfvj_ucunifiedcommunications.png)

For Sale
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty Press Conference: SNL Version
Post by: K-Dog on January 15, 2017, 11:14:03 AM
Best Parody so far IMHO.  Alec Baldwin is gonna do real well with this impersonation...as long as he lives anyhow. lol.

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/4_Gf0mGJfP8

He may live a long time.  All Baldwin does is talk about the Russian pee-pee sex tape and nobody with a brain is believing that is real.  Consequently this piece threatens Trump in no way.  Only if Trump were Stalin would Baldwin have need to worry.  Baldwin will be having lunch at the White House soon and both he and Trump will be laughing it up when he does.  Baldwin is laughing gas and that is all.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 15, 2017, 11:31:18 AM
I agree with K-dog that Trump will have great difficulty besting Obama, the reining champion among presidents in the deportation numbers. There is NO immigration problem. The REAL stats show that they have STOPPED coming here because the jobs have evaporated, not just because of the deportations.

That said, it is absolutely impossible to "defame" Trump, the champion POS of all US Presidents. If K-Dog wanted to be honest about Trump, he would say that Trump just used the immigration issue as a 'vote for me' sucker play on the bigots and xenophobic cretins in the USA. 

Maybe someday K-Dog will be open minded about the horrendous bigotry and prejudice endemic to most white Americans. But, until that day comes, he will go out of his way to deny there is a problem and to downplay any news that evidences racism in the Police, the Courts and the Streets. 

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b7/52/83/b752839aa828136b4efa1c255de58796.jpg)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 15, 2017, 11:44:20 AM
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241216151049.png)

Civil Rights Déjà Vu, Only Worse

Under George W. Bush, Republicans set about undermining the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Expect a more devastating assault on the division under Trump.

By Samuel R. Bagenstos

December 12, 2016
 
This article will appear in the Winter 2017 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here. (https://ssl.palmcoastd.com/21402/apps/ORDOPTION1LANDING?ikey=I**EF1)

SNIPPET:

In my first job as a practicing lawyer, I served from 1994 to 1997 as a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The division, staffed by hundreds of committed lawyers and other professionals, has long played a key role in making good on our nation’s promise of equality under the law. Established in 1957, it was at the center of the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s. Its attorneys had a major hand in drafting, defending, and enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and its cases successfully desegregated schools and neighborhoods throughout the United States. The Civil Rights Division has always represented the best of what government can do.

At the beginning of the Obama administration, I returned to the division as part of the leadership team assembled by Tom Perez, who was assistant attorney general at the time. George W. Bush’s administration had taken its toll on the division’s staff. Although some great lawyers and other professionals had continued to work there, the department’s top leadership under Bush had abused and demoralized them. During the first six months of my job, much of the work was best described as trauma counseling. At staff meetings and discussions of pending cases, lawyers would break down, suddenly remembering horrible things that the Bush folks had said or done.

Of course, not all the longtime staff had stuck it out through the Bush years. A large proportion of the attorneys in the division, including about two-thirds of those in the Voting Section, had departed. The departing lawyers were disproportionately those who had between 7 and 15 years of experience, just the people the division counts on most to lead trial teams and handle the most complex and sensitive issues.

When career lawyers left during the Bush administration, three sorts of people replaced them. One group consisted of good lawyers who cared about civil rights. These were the kind of attorneys whom the division might have hired at any time—and there might have been more of them if the Bush appointees had not tried to avoid hiring lawyers who worked with civil-rights groups. A second group was made up of undistinguished lawyers from partisan Republican networks, who had shown no commitment to civil rights but sought a steady job in the career civil service. The third group was the most threatening: right-wing true believers with an agenda to subvert the historic work of the division—an agenda many of them continued to pursue after Barack Obama took office. Some of these attorneys, such as Hans von Spakovsky and J. Christian Adams, eventually left the division and became outspoken critics of Obama’s civil-rights policies from perches in conservative media.

By the time Perez and his team were done, the Civil Rights Division was the most aggressive and effective civil-rights law firm in the country—and perhaps the government’s most aggressive and effective enforcement agency. The Democratic Congress played a central role. It gave the division money to hire new career lawyers, enabling us to recruit truly outstanding, experienced, and committed people. We also insisted that front-line supervisors apply rigorous standards to all their employees, which helped to get the best performance from everyone and encouraged poor performers to find something else to do. We brought in several new section chiefs who took on both longstanding and newly developing civil-rights issues.

Under Perez, the division pushed forward on as many issues as possible as quickly as possible. When he moved on to head the Department of Labor, his successors Jocelyn Samuels and Vanita Gupta—neither of whom served with Senate confirmation—built on his achievements.

Trump’s announcement that Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions is his choice for attorney general sends an especially strong signal about the new administration’s intentions.

The election of Donald Trump, I fear, will wipe out all those achievements. Trump’s announcement that Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions is his choice for attorney general sends an especially strong signal about the new administration’s intentions. Sessions first came to public notice in the 1980s as a young Reagan-appointed U.S. attorney in Alabama, when he criminally prosecuted three prominent local voting-rights activists for voter fraud—only to see a jury acquit the activists in a matter of hours. Although Reagan nominated Sessions for a federal judgeship, the Republican-controlled Senate voted down his nomination after a number of Department of Justice lawyers—including one from the Civil Rights Division—testified about his use of racist language with his coworkers. Sessions has attracted national attention in recent years for his extreme anti-immigration positions.

Here are the areas in which civil-rights advocates should have the most concern about a Trump/Sessions Justice Department: (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://prospect.org/article/civil-rights-d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu-only-worse (http://prospect.org/article/civil-rights-d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu-only-worse)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 15, 2017, 11:45:37 AM
Coretta Scott King's letter that helped sink Sessions in 1986 is finally public 

By Mark Sumner   

Tuesday Jan 10, 2017 ·  6:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 10: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing to be the U.S. Attorney General January 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Sessions was one of the first members of Congress to endorse and support President-elect Donald Trump (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif), who nominated him for Attorney General. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (at article link)

The letter that Coretta Scott King wrote to the Senate in 1986 when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was up for a federal judgeship was never entered into the record. So, until now it hasn't been available to the public.

According to Buzzfeed, Democrats cannot get the letter released as they are beholden to committee rules that give only Sen. Chuck Grassley the power to do that. The question is, can a Democratic senator just read it out loud as a part of their time?

But now the Washington Post has obtained the letter.  ;D

Quote

“Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.”

”The irony of Mr. Sessions’ nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods,” she wrote, later adding: “I believe his confirmation would have a devastating effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also on the progress we have made toward fulfilling my husband’s dream.”

This letter was buried in 1986 by then committee chairman Strom Thurmond  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) . It’s easy to see that he and Sessions would have gotten along famously.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/10/1619055/-The-Coretta-Scott-King-s-letter-that-helped-sink-Session-in-1986-is-finally-public (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/10/1619055/-The-Coretta-Scott-King-s-letter-that-helped-sink-Session-in-1986-is-finally-public)

Senator Franken Exposes Sessions Mendacity

http://www.youtube.com/v/fsU3L7Btpto


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/10/1618957/-Busted-Senator-Al-Franken-sets-Sessions-up-and-then-traps-him-in-his-lies (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/10/1618957/-Busted-Senator-Al-Franken-sets-Sessions-up-and-then-traps-him-in-his-lies)

Cannabis Laws were ALWAYS about putting African Americans in Prison.  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/v/Lns9UsMPQVw

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/we-just-passed-dangerous-new-climate-tipping-point (http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/we-just-passed-dangerous-new-climate-tipping-point)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 15, 2017, 11:50:04 AM
January 10, 2017

Democrats Go Soft (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp) on Jeff Sessions and Why That Should Concern Us All

 Historian Gerald Horne says Jeff Sessions as Trump's Attorney General signals a frontal assault against the gains of the Civil Rights Movement

Dr. Gerald Horne holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. Dr. Horne has also written extensively about the film industry. His latest book is The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University.

https://youtu.be/Z9EQhBv8qDg (https://youtu.be/Z9EQhBv8qDg)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:

JAISAL NOOR: Welcome to the Real News Network. We're coming to you live on Facebook, as we cover the Senate Confirmation hearings underway for Donald Trump's cabinet picks. First up is Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who Trump has tapped for Attorney General. He was Trump's earliest, and one of his most vocal supporters in the Senate. He's expected to be confirmed, but that hasn't stopped what seemed like an endless stream of protestors from disrupting the hearing.

(video clip)
MAN: This is a... (heckling - inaudible) ...the whole (inaudible) ...redeemed (inaudible). People just wanted you to speak to these things, (inaudible) poor people... (inaudible - heckling) ... (shouting)
(end video clip)

JAISAL NOOR: Well, now joining us to discuss this is Gerald Horne. He's the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History in African-American Studies, at the University of Houston. Author of many books, most recently, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America". Thanks so much for joining us again.

GERALD HORNE: Thank you for inviting me.

JAISAL NOOR: So, Jeff Sessions spent a good deal of time today defending his history, and his record on civil rights. Which is significant, because in 1986, Republicans joined with Democrats to block him from becoming a federal judge, after allegations of racism surfaced from his colleagues.

To counter these claims today, he cited his prosecution of civil rights activists when he was U.S. Attorney to Alabama in the 1980s. They were registering elderly black voters. We're going to play the clip, and then we'll play news coverage from 1986 that discusses that case. Here's that clip.

(video clip)

JEFF SESSIONS: Let me address another issue straight on. I was accused in 1986 of failing to protect the voting rights of African-Americans, by representing the Perry County case, the voter fraud case, and of condemning civil rights advocates and organizations, and even harboring, amazingly, sympathies for the KKK. These are damnably false charges.

   The voter fraud case my office prosecuted was in response to pleas from African-American incumbent elected officials, who claimed that the absentee ballot process involved a situation in which ballots cast for them were stolen, altered, and cast for their opponents. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif)

REPORTER: His biggest problem came in a case he prosecuted and lost, a vote fraud case involving black civil rights leaders in Perry County, Alabama.

   Defendants in the Perry County case were Albert and Evelyn Turner, political and civil rights leaders for more than 20 years. Albert was an aide to Martin Luther King. Their scrapbook has all the marches.

EVENLYN TURNER: This is Bloody Sunday. Albert can see... that's him right there.

REPORTER: Albert Turner guided the mules at Dr. King's funeral. The federal government charged the Turners with doctoring absentee ballots, vote fraud and mail fraud.

ALBERT TURNER: My own opinion is that the case was ... I actually don't think Jeff Sessions ever came in with an ounce of evidence.
(end of video clip)

JAISAL NOOR: Okay, so to recap, Jeff Sessions says he is a defender of civil rights and voting rights  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg), because he prosecuted the Turners who were registering elderly black voters (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg) in Alabama in the '80s. Gerald Horne, give us your response to this.

GERALD HORNE: Well, obviously, Jeff Sessions' response is a case of opportunism. It reminds me of the vice presidential debate with Mike Pence and the Democratic candidate, Tim Kaine, where Mike Pence basically denied reality and denied truths -- and apparently that worked, since now he's the Vice President-elect of the United States of America.

   Jeff Sessions has copied that playbook, and feels that this will lead to his confirmation as the U.S. Attorney General. It's rather disconcerting to look at the New York Times headline and see that according to their reporter, the Democrats did not land a glove on Jeff Sessions -- which is quite unfortunate, because that voting rights case is enough to sink this nomination. Keep in mind--

JAISAL NOOR: And... It actually was part of why he wasn't a federal judge in '86, why Republicans joined with Democrats. It was a Republican-controlled committee that blocked him from being a federal judge.

GERALD HORNE: Yeah, basically what happened, was that Albert Turner was helping some voters fill out an absentee ballot -- some of these voters reputedly had problems in terms of reading these ballots. And to prosecute Mr. Turner, and try to put him in jail for such assistance is beyond the pale.

In the New York Times this morning, in fact, the wife of Mr. Turner –- Mr. Turner has now passed away –- she said that Jeff Sessions came up to her recently and tried to explain, and tried to hug her, and she basically chased him away. And I think that the Democrats and other senators of good will should chase him away from that hearing room, and make sure he is not confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States.

JAISAL NOOR: Well, he's certainly been facing what seems like an endless barrage of protests. There is a moment where protestors with Code Pink actually dressed up in KKK hoods, to confront him about his past.
   And, you know, I was watching the hearings on CSPAN, and the president of the NAACP also expressed his frustration that Sessions, who was a Senator, member of the same committee, was treated with such deference. He wasn't really challenged very often on his record. There was a moment where he was challenged, though, by Senator Al Franken. He questioned Sessions about several civil rights cases that Sessions claims to have worked on as, again, U.S. Attorney to Alabama.

   I want to play a clip of that questioning, and actually was able to track down one of the lawyers that did work on those cases. Mr. Gerald Hebert, who was a Department of Justice lawyer at the time, and he actually testified in Sessions' hearing in 1986. And he says Sessions wasn't being truthful. And that's why he and several of his Department of Justice colleagues wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last week, which went viral. Here's that exchange.

(video clip)
AL FRANKEN: Last week, I should note three attorneys who worked at DOJ, and who actually brought three of the four cases, who wrote an op-ed piece in which they say, "We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them."

Now, you originally said that you personally handled three of these cases, but these lawyers say that you had no substantive involvement. Chairman Grassley, I would ask that that op-ed from last Tuesday's Washington Post be entered into the record.

CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY: Without objection it will be entered.

AL FRANKEN: Are they distorting your record here?

JEFF SESSIONS: Yes. In fact, one of the writers there, Mr. Hebert, spent a good bit of time in my office. He said I supported him in all the cases he brought, that I was more supportive than almost any other U.S. Attorney, and that I provided office space. I signed the complaints that he brought, and as you know... may know, Senator Franken, when a lawyer signs a complaint, he's required to affirm that he believes in that complaint, and supports that complaint, and supports that legal action.

GERALD HEBERT: We looked at that list, and three or four of those cases were ones that we handled personally when we were at the Justice Department. And we knew he didn't really have any involvement, substantively, in any of those cases. So, we felt that the senate colleagues that he has, who are on the Judiciary Committee, as well as members of the public, ought to know that he really can't be taking credit for other people's work.
(end video clip)

JAISAL NOOR: So, that was that exchange with Senator Franken, questioning Jeff Sessions about his claims that he worked on those cases, and Sessions saying, "No, Mr. Hebert, he thinks highly of me, I supported his work." And then my interview with Gerald Hebert saying, "Absolutely not, that is not the case."

This is a clear example of Sessions fabricating history to change his track record on civil rights, to make it more appealing and to make it easier, I guess, for his confirmation. Your response, Professor Horne?

GERALD HORNE: Well, it reminds me of heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis, who more than seven decades ago was fighting Billy Conn, and Joe Louis's message to Billy Conn is, "You can run, but you can't hide." Jeff Sessions may be able to run from his record temporarily, but he cannot hide from his record, which is a human rights and civil rights debacle. Keep in mind that Jeff Sessions is on record as denying the notion of birthright citizenship, which is embedded in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

   In other words, the 14th Amendment says if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen of the United States. Because Jeff Sessions is so anti-immigrant and because, like his boss, Donald J. Trump, he accepts the fallacious notion of so-called Anchor Babies -- that is to say women and other women coming into the United States in order to have a baby, so that somehow then they can get a leg up into getting rights as U.S. nationals, or at least mothers of U.S. nationals. Because he accepts such fallacies, he's willing to mangle, and do violence, to the Constitution of the United States of America, and the 14th Amendment, more specifically.

   He's also very hostile to LBGT rights. He's anti-immigrant, as noted. He's anti-working class, in terms of the denial of the right of workers to get a living wage. He should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

JAISAL NOOR: Another stance he's taken, is he has come out on record and opposed the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court gutted just a few years ago. And we've seen the reports of massive voter disenfranchisement across the country, hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote. We've seen more than a dozen states limit voting, the ability to vote, which disproportionately target African-American and people of color.

And now you're going to have Jeff Sessions, who actually prosecuted people for registering people to vote, as the Attorney General defending the right to vote. What is that going to mean for the ability for this country to have the semblance of a fair election in the future?

GERALD HORNE: Well, it makes the possibility of a fair election in the United States of America basically a nullity: null and void, a joke, a travesty. It would be as if you were appointing the wolf to guard the henhouse. If Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General, has the authority to supervise Voting Rights Act regulation, and in fact, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act, even as gutted, is still not removed from the books altogether, once again, it's very disappointing to see that many of the Democratic Senators are treating him as if he were a valued colleague, as opposed to treating him as the civil rights and constitutional rights outlaw that he actually is.

JAISAL NOOR: And so, another thing that's of concern to people around the country and, for example, in Baltimore, is that Jeff Sessions has... he supports "law and order", and he's come out specifically against Consent Decrees. That's when the federal government, Department of Justice, intervenes with local police departments.

Like we saw in Ferguson, and again right here in Baltimore, when the actions of the local police are so egregious that, as in the Baltimore case, that DOJ lawyers found a pattern in practice of routine constitutional violation of civil and human rights by the police force, especially on the African-American population -- and that's something Baltimore's tackled for a long time -- the local authorities can't seem to get a grip on it, so the feds have intervened. And in Baltimore's case, if that Consent Decree is not that... to a federal judge, by the time Trump takes office, it's likely going to mean that there will be no Consent Decree here, that things will go back to the way they were.

   Talk about what a Donald Trump presidency, and a Jeff Sessions Attorney General, could mean for law enforcement across the country.

GERALD HORNE: Well, not only is what you're saying relevant to Baltimore -- recall a few years ago that Tamir Rice, a young black boy, was killed on tape by Cleveland police officers -- there was no viable prosecution of those police officers. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department intervened, just like the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department intervened with regard to Ferguson, Missouri, in the aftermath a few years ago of the slaying of Michael Brown.

If Jeff Sessions becomes the U.S. Attorney General, you can kiss good bye the idea of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department intervening in cases where young black boys and men have been killed by the police. This could lead to a further epidemic of such police slayings, and obviously this is too ghastly to contemplate.

JAISAL NOOR: And, Professor Horne, you've studied and documented U.S. history since its inception, done some of the leading work on those issues. How do you place the moment we're in, in an historical context with a Trump presidency, and someone like Jeff Sessions, who is deemed too racially insensitive to be a federal judge 30 years ago, to now be our next Attorney General?

GERALD HORNE: Well, what's interesting is that Reverend William Barber, of Moral Mondays fame, in North Carolina, the head of the NAACP in that state, has suggested that we're going through the Third Reconstruction, and the birth pangs of the Third Reconstruction. He's referring to the First Reconstruction after the abolishing of slavery post-1865, the Second Reconstruction in the 1960s culminating, as you noted, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

He says that we're now on the verge of a Third Reconstruction. But in fact, with all due respect to Reverend Barber, what seems to be unfolding with this pending appointment of Jeff Sessions, is the overthrow of the Second Reconstruction of the 1960s. Just like the First Reconstruction, post-1865, was overthrown in 1877.

Now, in 2017, we see, 140 year later, that we're on the verge of the overthrow of the Second Reconstruction, but it's not too late to prevent that result from taking place.

I salute the protesters, I salute Code Pink, but obviously, we will need much more if Jeff Sessions is to be denied the appointment to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America.

JAISAL NOOR: All right, Gerald Horne, thank you so much for joining us.

   We want to thank you all for joining us on Facebook. We will continue our ongoing coverage of the confirmation hearings of Jeff Sessions' cabinet appointees, and the Trump administration, including on Inauguration Day and beyond. Thank you so much for joining us.


-------------------------
END

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18097 (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18097)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 15, 2017, 11:56:19 AM
(http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png)
http://www.youtube.com/v/uQUkaEVe7II

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:

July, 2016 and a very disorganized Trump campaign is headed into an equally chaotic Republican National Convention. The latest fundraising numbers for June are dismal, and according to CNBC, Trump is second guessing his decision to make Mike Pence his running mate, making last minute phone calls to assess the pick just days before the event. Past GOP candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney have decided to skip the convention. So have both former Bush presidents. One day before the convention and there’s still no official list of speakers. Nevertheless, July 18th roles around and the GOP has to move forward with the show.

GOP Convention

“Keep on singing […] USA, USA”

The convention is considered a disaster. It exposes a party in disarray. Delegations from Iowa and Colorado stage a walkout over a critical rules vote.

Delegates chanting, Denver 7 Broadcast

“Roll call vote, roll call vote […] Right there in the top right you can actually see Kendal Unruh in blue. She’s one of the leaders of the never Trump or dump Trump movement, trying to get the rules changed at the start of the convention to let delegates vote their conscience.”

Subsequent polls show Trump trailing Clinton in need-to-win swing states. Coupled with a string of bad press stories, including Trump’s fight with the family of a fallen Iraq vet, the Trump campaign seems to have lost its momentum.

Joe Scarborough, MSNBC

“Donald Trump is just not doing what is required to win.”

In a surprise move, the Trump campaign shakes up it’s leadership at the eleventh hour, bringing on far-right editor in chief of Breitbart News Steve Bannon along with former Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. Days later, David Bossie, head of the corporate advocacy group Citizens United, is brought on as deputy manager of the campaign. The campaign also hires the data mining firm Cambridge Anayltica tasked with probing the American voters mind.

At a glance, these last-minute developments look desperate and disjointed.

Dana Perino, FOX

“I don’t know what they’re doing. I wish I could tell you.”

But a closer look reveals something different. It reveals a hidden connection between these players, a thread between this seemingly random cast of actors.

Enter billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. They’ve been eyeing Trump ever since their first choice, Ted Cruz, dropped out of the primaries back in May.

SOT — Ted Cruz

“We are suspending our campaign.”

Robert Mercer is part of a new class of billionaires, along with the Koch brothers for example, who’ve used the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows for unlimited amounts of cash contributions in US elections, to set up their own powerful political infrastructures that today they rival that of the two major parties.

The fuel behind Mercer’s influence, along with most of the top activist billionaires in America, is the absurd sums of money he accrues at the investment company he runs, Renaissance Technologies, based on Long Island, New York. Its famed Medallion fund is one of the most successful hedge funds in investing history, averaging 72 percent returns before fees over more than 20 years, a statistic that baffles analysts, and outranks the profitability of other competing funds, like the ones George Soros and Warren Buffet run.

In 2015, Mercer had single-handedly catapulted Cruz to the front of the Republican field, throwing more than $13 million into a super PAC he created for the now failed candidate.

But with the Trump campaign faltering and struggling for support, there’s a second chance for the Mercers to make a big bet. The Trump campaign is well aware of this. In fact, sources within Mercer’s super PAC would later tell Bloomberg news that moments after Cruz drops out of the race, Ivanka Trump and her wealthy developer husband, Jared Kushner, approach the Mercers, asking if they’d be willing to shift their support behind Trump. The answer is an eventual but resounding yes.

In the months leading up to Trump’s presidential win, the Mercers would prove a formidable force. Beginning after the disastrous Republican convention in July, they would furnish the Trump campaign not only with millions of dollars but with new leadership. But they would furnish him with something more: a vast network of non profits, strategists, media companies, research institutions and super PACs that they themselves funded, and largely controlled.

Carrie Levine, Center for Public Integrity

“I think what you’ve seen is a lot of these organizations in this network come out to play a role in the 2016 elections.”

With the Mercer family in the picture, the post-convention shake-up starts to make sense. Take Steve Bannon. He and Robert Mercer have been close for years. And Mercer is a top investor in Breitbart news, where Bannon was chief editor. Mercer’s also funded a number of Bannon’s media projects. Kellyanne Conway also comes out of this network. Before becoming co manager of Trump’s campaign, she headed up operations for Robert Mercer’s super PAC when it was supporting Ted Cruz. Deputy campaign manager David Bossie was president of Citizens United before joining the campaign, an organization Mercer has heavily funded since at least 2010. Cambridge Analytica, the mysterious data mining firm that received grudging praise after predicting the race’s outcome more accurately than any other polling company, is also heavily funded by Robert Mercer, and was employed by the Cruz campaign before Mercer switched over to Trump. In fact, the Mercers’ political infrastructure is so entrenched, that Rebekah Mercer herself sits on the 16 person executive committee of Trump’s transition team.

Mercer’s foray into the White House may seem to have been born partly out of luck, especially with Trump instead of Cruz as his stalking horse. But his rise to power was systematic, and it was years in the making.

The web of connections Mercer’s built over the last decade is vast and complex. It includes efforts to dismantle tax law and weaken the IRS; it’s about funding quack scientists and conspiracy theorists who blame the government for, among other things, playing a role in the San Bernadino massacre and of colluding with the United Nations in using climate change as an excuse to implement environmental laws meant to depopulate America’s midwest. It’s about pouring money into the neoconservative John Bolton Super PAC, which props up candidates who ascribe to Bolton’s very hawkish foreign policy.

But one of Mercer’s earliest activist ventures was financing a slew of fringe documentary projects that’ve helped raise the profiles of people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and most notably, the director of those films, Steve Bannon.

Bannon, who was previously a naval officer and Goldman Sachs investment banker, made his first documentary in 2004 about Ronald Reagan. It retold his biography using washed out, black and white archival footage of the Hollywood actor, painting him as brave protector of western democracy from the threat communism.

In the Face of Evil

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this the last best hope of man on earth or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

The film wasn’t a commercial success. According to the reviews, it was a flop. But it developed a cult following. And it revealed that there was an untapped audience for this sort of film, which demonized America’s current establishment while lamenting the death of old-time conservatism under Reagan.

In the Face of Evil would also connect Bannon to conservative author Peter Schweizer, who’s namesake book the film was based on.  It would also connect him to another rising conservative figure Bannon met at a screening of his Reagan film in Beverly Hills, a man Bannon recalled in a Bloomberg piece who came up to him after the showing like a “bear,” he said “who’s squeezing me like my head’s going to blow up and saying how we’ve gotta take back the culture.” His name: Andrew Breitbart, a conservative commentator who for the next few years would join Bannon and Schweizer in their efforts to establish a fresh conservative narrative, with Breitbart himself focusing on an idea for a new media company, something partly inspired by a trip to Jerusalem and the need to create an outlet "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel", something that would come to fruition in 2007 and that he would call breitbart.com.

“One of the things I admired about [Breitbart],” Bannon said in that Bloomberg story, “was that the dirtiest word for him was ‘punditry’ […] Our vision—Andrew’s vision—was always to build a global, center-right, populist, anti-establishment news site.”

But that wasn’t all. What Bannon, Schweizer and Breitbart really wanted to forge was a multi-teared effort to push their agenda. They wanted to fund Schweizer’s books and Bannon’s films. They wanted a research wing. Ultimately, they wanted to create a media infrastructure big enough to pump their ideology into America’s national discourse.

But they needed more investors. And they needed large investors, people who could fund this giant operation for a sustained period of time, because what this right-wing trio had set out to do wasn’t to simply start a business. It was to transform America’s rage, it’s largely white, rural, working class discontent into a political movement that would storm Washington, first in the form of the Tea Party, and again six years later in the form of Trump.


That influx of cash would come from the organization more famous now for the Supreme Court decision it inspired than for the media and political work it’s done for decades, thanks in part to funders like the Koch brothers and, of course, Robert Mercer. The pro-corporate advocacy group Citizens United was created in 1988, and for years it had pumped out television ads, films and other forms of media content that sought to put pressure both on Democrats as well as more moderate Republicans to embrace a far-right, corporate-friendly approach to politics.

Citizens United Promo

“Remember that the left controls Hollywood. They control entertainment. They control the movies. They control television. They control mass media. They control certainly journalism. And so, what Citizens United has figured out is that through the media, they can in fact move public opinion. They can shape America, and thereby shape Washington.”

It was that effort that gave rise to the film Hillary: The Movie, which in turn lead to the supreme court case that changed the way politics is done in the United States.

It’s worth noting that the Citizens United decision to allow for unlimited campaign contributions through super PACs didn’t originate from any billionaire or corporation directly complaining about contribution limits. It originated from this documentary, which Bannon directed, and which FEC rules barred from being shown because it fell under the category of “electioneering communications.” Essentially, union and corporate funded groups like Citizens United couldn’t air anything critical about a candidate within 30 days of the primaries, and 60 days of the general elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down that rule opened up the floodgates for unlimited campaign spending, which Citizens United and its billionaire and corporate donors seized upon.

Citizens United has been heavily funded by the Koch Brothers and their network of donors, which Mercer joined early on. But in 2010, Mercer decides to extend his reach and influence beyond the confines of that network, beginning first with Breitbart News, which at the time had hit a bit of a rough patch.

Andrew Breitbart had put out a misleading video that showed a Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, making what people characterized as racist remarks towards white people. Sherrod was fired, and when it came out afterwards that the clip had been manipulated, Sherrod sued Andrew Breitbart. The lawsuit fell on the heels of another false video exposé Breitbart had done a year earlier involving the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, which had resulted in their loss of private and government funding. After the Sherrod video, the media virtually blacklisted him along with his site from mainstream.

The hiccup prompted Mercer to capitalize on the event. According to Bloomberg news, he puts upwards of $10 million in the company later that year, making him a top investor.

The next two years are spent expanding and sharpening these media connections. Bannon continues to produce documentaries, including The Undefeated, featuring the rise of Sarah Palin, as well as Occupy Unmasked, which aimed to discredit the 2011 protest movement.

Occupy Unmasked

(Breitbart): “These people feel morally justified to commit crimes.”

Schweizer continues publishing his books, most notably Clinton Cash in 2015, which Bannon adapted into a documentary and which fueled the right’s obsession with Hillary Clinton and the sources for her foundation. Meanwhile, Mercer is quietly lubricating his political and financial empire, doling out money to a whole slew of conservative non profits such as the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, Citizens United and many more.

Then, in 2012, Andrew Breitbart dies suddenly from a heart attack.

Wolf Blitzer, CNN

“[…] dead at the age of 43. Breitbart was certainly a driving force in the Tea Party movement as well as a very influential political voice on the internet.”

Mercer and Bannon, who was a board member at Breitbart, quickly rearrange leadership roles in an effort to not lose any momentum. In fact, Breitbart’s death seemed to have been a morbid blessing for the group. Breitbart, unlike his compatriots, had always been more of an old-school, more moderate conservative. He’d worked at the Drudge Report, which many saw as a bullhorn for the Bush administration. More surprisingly, he’d been a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and helped create an early model for what would become the liberal Huffington Post.

So: Mercer, Bannon and Schwiezer crank up the heat. In the months after Breitbart dies, Bannon is made executive chairman of breitbart.com. Schweizer, meanwhile, founds a new research group that focuses on feeding content to Breitbart news and Citizens United for their documentary projects called the Government Accountability Institute, where Mercer is a top funder while Bannon sits on the board.

These shifts are all taking place in the shadows of the presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney epitomized the GOP establishment, and Mercer must have been reluctant to give to his campaign: he ended up throwing about a million dollars into a super PAC supporting Romney, a paltry number compared to the $15 million he spent on Trump, and the $13 million he spent on Cruz.

Romney’s loss was a heavy defeat for Republican voters around the country. With so many Americans still struggling to get back on their feet after the 2008 economic crisis, his defeat angered many GOP voters. Some blamed Obama and the Democrats. Others blamed the Republican establishment, including Romney himself.

But at the NYU Club in New York, moments after the news of Obama’s reelection, one unsuspecting voice would take a small group of wealthy donors by storm, blasting the Romney team for dropping the ball on their data mining and canvassing operations. That woman was Rebekah Mercer, Robert Mercer’s daughter.

After Romney, Rebekah became her father’s right hand. Before that, Robert Mercer’s role in his political dealings was to supply money to the people he admired and trusted, people like Bannon, Schweizer and Breitbart. Rebekah wanted to change that. She wanted accountability over the money her father spent. And Romney’s failure provided an opportunity to step into the republican arena and assert her and her father’s agenda.

Between 2012 and 2016, she would take formal leadership positions at the think tanks and non profits her father funded. She became a director at Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute. She took over the Mercer Family Foundation. And more recently, she managed her father’s super PAC, alongside Kellyanne Conway.

She and her father began to engage more in what you might call a kind of sniper fire politics, investing money in very specific races and causes.

Carrie Levine

“We’ve seen Robert Mercer put money into super pacs in races that have something to do with often tax. This cycle he gave money to a super pac backing a primary challenger to senator John McCain in Arizona. McCain is a Republican and he was the cochair of the senate committee that investigated Renaissance’s tax strategies.”

McCain would later say he thought Mercer was doing this because of that investigation, which was looking into whether RenTec had avoided more than $6 billion in taxes over the course of 14 years.

For the 2016 Republican primaries, Robert Mercer decided to put his support behind Ted Cruz and so did Bannon. But as Cruz faltered and took positions that ran counter to Bannon’s conservative agenda, like supporting the TPP, Mercer and Bannon began questioning their support of a candidate who was too obviously trying to appease both the disgruntled American voter as well as corporate interests in Washington. In the end, Cruz’s evangelical christian persona failed to cover up his true identity, which was as a Harvard-educated lawyer who’d worked for years in Washington including as a young clerk in the Supreme Court.

Robert Mercer seldom makes public appearances and he never talks to the press. The only time he’s spoken publicly was in 2014, after he received a lifetime achievement award from the Association for Computational Linguistics. In the hour-long acceptance speech he gives in Baltimore, Maryland, Mercer spends almost all of his time talking about his passion for computers.

Robert Mercer

“I loved everything about computers. I loved the solitude of the computer lab late at night. I loved the air-conditioned smell of the place. I loved the sound of the discs whirring and the printers clacking.”

None of his remarks are political, except for one comment he makes, when he’s talking about the time he worked at the Air Force weapons lab in New Mexico, and the one day he discovered how to make their computers run 100 times faster.

Robert Mercer

“A strange thing happened. Instead of running the old computations in 1/100 of the time, the powers that be at the lab ran computations that were 100 times bigger. I took this as an indication that one of the most important goals of government-financed research is not so much to get answers as it is to consume the computer budget. Which has left me ever since with a jaundiced view of government-financed research.”

Mercer doesn’t quite fit into an established upper class. He isn’t exactly a Wall Street type, and neither are the 300 employees, many of whom are, like him, advanced mathematicians and physicists, who work at Renaissance Technologies’ brainchild, the Medallion fund.

Carrie Levine

“I think it’s interesting to note that this is a guy who has a programming background, a coding background who didn’t start out on Wall Street and so he’s come to this through sort of a different route […] He’s spoken very little about his political giving and so we can’t say a lot about his motives, at least not [from] what he’s said.”

The fund is known for its secrecy. It’s been closed to outside investors since 2005, and what exactly they trade isn’t fully understood. What is known is that what Mercer along with retired Renaissance Technologies founder James Simons and co CEO Peter Brown have done is master the math behind something called quantitative trading, which involves gaming the stock market using advanced algorithms and data analysis to create unprecedented profits. 

Bill Black, former bank regulator

“All they do is make one group of literally billionaires slightly richer than another group of billionaires […] but they add absolutely nothing to the economy or the world effectively.”

2016’s list of biggest political donors is stacked with billionaires who’ve made their money by engaging in what amount to different forms of gambling. The largest donor of the cycle, Tom Steyer is a hedge fund manager. The second, Sheldon Adelson, is a casino magnate. The third, Donald Sussman, is a quant fund manager. Strangely enough, founder of Renaissance Technologies James Simons, who’s one the Democrats’ largest donors, is number 5 on the list, while his colleague and Republican counterpart Robert Mercer is number 7.

Bill Black

“It’s not a coincidence that the enormous amounts of wealth go to people who are connected with gambling, but recall that they don’t gamble. Adelson is the House. The House, mathematically, is going to win. And the idea at the hedge fund is that is, again, to have better math than the other billionaires so that you have — statistically you’re going to win.”

Casino capitalism has given people like Robert and Rebekah Mercer riches and power beyond most people’s imagination. But the role of activist billionaires in American politics isn’t new. It’s just become stronger as wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, with the top 1 percent of Americans today holding on to 40 percent of the country’s wealth, and with much of that increase taking place in the finance and energy sectors of the economy. The rise of people like Robert Mercer and the Koch brothers reflects how billionaires have gradually taken more direct control over politicians and the state.

Bill Black
“One of the things that is really useful if you’re a billionaire and that you get your money by doing nothing socially useful, is to valorize what you’re doing and to demonize anyone that might actually restrict it by law, regulation even social mores. And propaganda is historically, the answer to that.”


http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/250-article-with-comment/3021-the-bizarre-far-right-billionaire-behind-trumps-presidency (http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/250-article-with-comment/3021-the-bizarre-far-right-billionaire-behind-trumps-presidency)


Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 15, 2017, 08:41:54 PM
If K-Dog wanted to be honest about Trump, he would say that Trump just used the immigration issue as a 'vote for me' sucker play on the bigots and xenophobic cretins in the USA. 

Trump just used the immigration issue as a 'vote for me' sucker play on the bigots and xenophobic cretins in the USA.

He is married to an immigrant duh.  Perhaps agelbert does not consider women human?

Maybe someday K-Dog will be open minded about the horrendous bigotry and prejudice endemic to most white Americans.

But here we have a problem because your bigotry with its white hating agenda can't admit that the ugliness of man clothes the entire human race smoothly like a layer of fresh poured out cement smoothed out over rough dirt.  Virtue is not a claim of any race but only of particular individual men and it is a claim you in particular cannot yet make agelbert.

But, until that day comes, he will go out of his way to deny there is a problem and to downplay any news that evidences racism in the Police, the Courts and the Streets. 

On this you sling dirt at me like a monkey throwing feces out of a cage.  You are in violation of the CoC agelbert.

(https://img.tineye.com/result/66c08e8164b819216b4bcceea66b6046ba6f03f757686ba850f7cb847209edcf?size=160)
agelbert

I don't see you asking that Obama pardon Leonard Peltier in anything you write agelbert and I'm not even bothered enough to use the biggest font size we have putting your name below your picture.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 15, 2017, 09:11:57 PM
Can we PLEASE stay inside the CoC here and quit attacking other Diners? ???  ::)

STICK TO THE FUCKING TOPICS!

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 15, 2017, 09:17:40 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/FreeLeonardPeltierSign.jpg/800px-FreeLeonardPeltierSign.jpg)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 15, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
The one last thing Obama can do is pardon people, and this is the season for it.  Let's wait and see who he pardons, and THEN attack him.

Wikipedia: "In his 1999 memoir, Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents, but denies that he fired the fatal shots that killed them.[20]"

I don't doubt that the FBI was angry at the murder of 2 of their own, and they COULD have framed him, but since he admits the above, I doubt Obama will pardon him.  He gets out in 2040, when he'll be 96.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 15, 2017, 09:56:36 PM
The one last thing Obama can do is pardon people, and this is the season for it.  Let's wait and see who he pardons, and THEN attack him.

Wikipedia: "In his 1999 memoir, Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents, but denies that he fired the fatal shots that killed them.[20]"

I don't doubt that the FBI was angry at the murder of 2 of their own, and they COULD have framed him, but since he admits the above, I doubt Obama will pardon him.  He gets out in 2040, when he'll be 96.

If the FBI had shot and killed Leonard, how much prison time would thy have received?

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 16, 2017, 01:24:21 AM
The one last thing Obama can do is pardon people, and this is the season for it.  Let's wait and see who he pardons, and THEN attack him.

Wikipedia: "In his 1999 memoir, Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents, but denies that he fired the fatal shots that killed them.[20]"

I don't doubt that the FBI was angry at the murder of 2 of their own, and they COULD have framed him, but since he admits the above, I doubt Obama will pardon him.  He gets out in 2040, when he'll be 96.

Lots of people fired at the agents.  The reservation was in a state of war with about 1% of the population of the reservation having been murdered in the previous year.  In isolation admitting to having fired at the agents is damming.  In context it is understandable.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Agent_William%27s_Car.jpg/180px-Agent_William%27s_Car.jpg)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 16, 2017, 01:29:08 AM
The one last thing Obama can do is pardon people, and this is the season for it.  Let's wait and see who he pardons, and THEN attack him.

Wikipedia: "In his 1999 memoir, Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents, but denies that he fired the fatal shots that killed them.[20]"

I don't doubt that the FBI was angry at the murder of 2 of their own, and they COULD have framed him, but since he admits the above, I doubt Obama will pardon him.  He gets out in 2040, when he'll be 96.

If the FBI had shot and killed Leonard, how much prison time would thy have received?
ZERO, after the two FBI agents were shot an AIM member and associate of Peltier was brought down by a long range sniper.  Nobody was ever charged with that crime.  That answers your question.

A hundred Indians had been murdered in the previous year at Pine Ridge and the two green to the reservation FBI agents drove into a situation they did not understand.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 16, 2017, 07:23:04 AM

ZERO,

Obviously, my question was rhetorical.  Cops are never prosecuted for the murders they commit.  The badge of the state is a License to Kill.

The conviction and incarceration of LP was a strictly political move designed to do two things.

First, they need to pin blame on somebody and get a conviction to show that "law & justice will prevail".  They couldn't prosecute everyone who was shooting that day, so they picked one scapegoat.  LP won the lotto.

Second, they threw the book at LP and gave him 2 consecutive life sentences to instill fear in the AIM of pursuing further such actions.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 16, 2017, 03:16:01 PM
If K-Dog wanted to be honest about Trump, he would say that Trump just used the immigration issue as a 'vote for me' sucker play on the bigots and xenophobic cretins in the USA. 

Trump just used the immigration issue as a 'vote for me' sucker play on the bigots and xenophobic cretins in the USA.

He is married to an immigrant duh.  Perhaps agelbert does not consider women human?

Maybe someday K-Dog will be open minded about the horrendous bigotry and prejudice endemic to most white Americans.

But here we have a problem because your bigotry with its white hating agenda can't admit that the ugliness of man clothes the entire human race smoothly like a layer of fresh poured out cement smoothed out over rough dirt.  Virtue is not a claim of any race but only of particular individual men and it is a claim you in particular cannot yet make agelbert.

But, until that day comes, he will go out of his way to deny there is a problem and to downplay any news that evidences racism in the Police, the Courts and the Streets. 

On this you sling dirt at me like a monkey throwing feces out of a cage.  You are in violation of the CoC agelbert.

(https://img.tineye.com/result/66c08e8164b819216b4bcceea66b6046ba6f03f757686ba850f7cb847209edcf?size=160)
agelbert

I don't see you asking that Obama pardon Leonard Peltier in anything you write agelbert and I'm not even bothered enough to use the biggest font size we have putting your name below your picture.

Can we PLEASE stay inside the CoC here and quit attacking other Diners? ???  ::)

STICK TO THE FUCKING TOPICS!

RE

RE,
Thank you for addressing the spurious attack on me.  :emthup:


K-Dog,
Actually, I did sign a petition to ask President Obama to free Leonard Peltier less than two weeks ago at Care2. That was one of several, including petitions to have him pardon imprisoned Cannabis users. I don't post everything I do here.
(http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png)

December 22, 2016

Will President Obama Grant Clemency to Leonard Peltier (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)  Before He Leaves Office? ??? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)

TRNN Executive Producer Eddie Conway examines the political motivations behind mass imprisonment in the US and why so many people incarcerated can be considered "political prisoners."

http://www.youtube.com/v/PVduUjjDShc


http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18002:Will-President-Obama-Grant-Clemency-to-Leonard-Peltier-Before-He-Leaves- (http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18002:Will-President-Obama-Grant-Clemency-to-Leonard-Peltier-Before-He-Leaves-)
Office?

Agelbert NOTE: SLAVERY is alive and well in the U.S. Prison Industrial Complex.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)

September 5, 2016

Rattling the Bars: US Prison Labor

On this Episode of Rattling the Bars, TRNN Executive Producer Eddie Conway interviews Asatar Bair Assistant Professor of Economics at Riverside City College about prisons and the ownership of a person's labor power vs. the ownership of a person

http://www.youtube.com/v/_SJbQF2rS3c


September 20, 2016

Work Stoppage Prison Strike Continues in 11 US States

This is a revolt against inhuman conditions of incarceration and the use of free prison labor by many major US corporations, says Pastor Kenneth Glasgow

http://www.youtube.com/v/JEzpnRcyXgo

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17280 (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17280)

Furthermore, I think it is defamatory for you to make accusations about my character, especially when you refuse to face your rather blatant denial of prejudice and brutality against people of color endemic to the police and the Courts in the USA. The fact that you just equated me with a monkey says everything anyone needs to know about your claim to not be a racist. Shame on you.

AND, your straw grasping in regard to the Ukrainian immigrant wife of Trump is absolutely pathetic.

Trump's racist dog whistling on immigration, SPECIFICALLY in regard to latinos, has been documented by an eminent Scottish economist who has openly stated that THERE IS NO IMMIGRATION problem in the USA BECAUSE shortly after 2008 (and along with Obama's efforts to deport as many MEXICANS as possible), the evaporation of JOBS caused the immigration to begin going THE OTHER WAY among those latinos that had come here from the south. I can provide a nice video on that if you like. But I will only provide it if you promise to apologize for your baseless attack on me if I can prove to you (by the words of said economist and university Prof) that there is NO IMMIGRATION PROBLEM in the USA.

Have a nice day.  :icon_sunny:

None so blind as those who refuse to see.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 16, 2017, 03:36:27 PM
RE,
The topic on this thread, as far as I can tell, is TRUMP, not Obama. So, when K-Dog DERAILED the thread with the Leonard Peltier post, why didn't you split it off? THAT was a violation thread topic, was it not?

And when I addressed K-Dog's REFUSAL to deal with TRUMP's racist dog whistling, that IS germane to the TRUMPTY-DUMPTY POTUS THREAD because it deals with the cretins that refuse to see or address TRUMP's blatant racism. To claim someone is downplaying reality is not an attack, it is a statement of fact in this case. I did NOT "attack" K-Dog.

But he most certainly attacked me. NOTICE the other posts I made that tear Sessions (a great pal of TRUMP and the FIRST Senator to endorse TRUMP!) into tiny bits in regard to his RAMPANT RACISM that have not elicited WORD ONE from all these "objective" diners that claim to not have a racist bone in their body. And YEAH, that IS PERTINENT to THIS THREAD! 

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 16, 2017, 09:01:56 PM
I respond but it was not worth any quote.

The Ghost of Surly is with us.  Agelbert can't appreciate the humor some of need to express over the Trump situation.  Surly does better with the humor but Surly has consistently posted material that demonstrates Trump stupidity and ignorance, which is extreme, to reminds us this is no joke.  Jeff Sessions is truly terrible and there is nothing good to say about him.  Still agelbert,  he gets elected and I never voted for him.

When the troglovites actually take office none of us may be laughing and since it can't be stopped I will laugh now.

http://www.youtube.com/v/vQBhR3qNfwE  For now step right up and see the greatest show on earth (https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://screamingscarecrow.com/halloweenpictures/haunt-articles/ptb02.jpg&f=1).

(http://vz.cnwimg.com/thumbc-300x300/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/GettyImages-467066492.jpg)
$135 Million
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 16, 2017, 09:20:22 PM
RE,
The topic on this thread, as far as I can tell, is TRUMP, not Obama. So, when K-Dog DERAILED the thread with the Leonard Peltier post, why didn't you split it off? THAT was a violation thread topic, was it not?

Splitting threads is a rather tedious task, and I don't usually do it unless you get numerous posts running on a tangent.  Besides that, to be honest I don't read every thread or post made to the Diner Forum, so often enough I am completely unaware of all sorts of shit going down.

Then when I finally do find out about it, cleaning up the shit spread all over the walls of the Diner can be quite a chore.  ::)

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 17, 2017, 07:20:38 PM
I do not agree that I derailed this thread. 

Obama leaving office and Trump entering office are two sides of the same coin.  Obama pardons are therefore an appropriate topic in this thread.  The title of the thread is the:

Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread.

That does not define things well enough so that discussing our old POTUS and what he does at the end of his term as a consequence of Trumpty-Dumpties entry into the White House is inappropriate. 

Forty years in prison for firing a gun but not killing anyone is a bit much.  If I did have a habit of derailing threads like some other diners I'm sure RE would assign me my own news channel as he has done for others.


Discussing POT-US however would be more appropriate in the potfolio thread.

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 12:10:17 AM
I'm sure RE would assign me my own news channel as he has done for others.

You want your own Newz Channel?  How does K-Dog's Kibble Newz sound for a title?

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 18, 2017, 08:34:41 AM
I'm sure RE would assign me my own news channel as he has done for others.

You want your own Newz Channel?  How does K-Dog's Kibble Newz sound for a title?

RE

No I don't.  Quantity is not my thing and I don't curate the news much.  It would have to be dog droppings for my random rants and growls but right now I'm too busy to keep my own channel going.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 19, 2017, 11:30:35 AM
RE,
The topic on this thread, as far as I can tell, is TRUMP, not Obama. So, when K-Dog DERAILED the thread with the Leonard Peltier post, why didn't you split it off? THAT was a violation thread topic, was it not?

Splitting threads is a rather tedious task, and I don't usually do it unless you get numerous posts running on a tangent.  Besides that, to be honest I don't read every thread or post made to the Diner Forum, so often enough I am completely unaware of all sorts of shit going down.

Then when I finally do find out about it, cleaning up the shit spread all over the walls of the Diner can be quite a chore.  ::)

RE
But the fact remains that K-Dog ATTACKED me as well, though he doesn't want to admit it.

I do not agree that I derailed this thread. 

Obama leaving office and Trump entering office are two sides of the same coin.  Obama pardons are therefore an appropriate topic in this thread.  The title of the thread is the:

Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread.

That does not define things well enough so that discussing our old POTUS and what he does at the end of his term as a consequence of Trumpty-Dumpties entry into the White House is inappropriate. 

Forty years in prison for firing a gun but not killing anyone is a bit much.  If I did have a habit of derailing threads like some other diners I'm sure RE would assign me my own news channel as he has done for others.


Discussing POT-US however would be more appropriate in the potfolio thread.

Baloney!
THREE posts on Sessions, which IS applicable to Trump BECAUSE Sessions was the FIRST RACIST ASSHOLE to support the RACIST ASSHOLE TRUMP and you ARE NOT ONLY quiet as DEATH, you CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

The issue here is TRMUPTY-DUMPTY, NOT whether you voted for him or not, pal! The DISCUSSION of RACISM AND RACISTS in the US power structure is GERMANE to this thread, PERIOD!

Here's ONE MORE CHANCE for you admit that Trump and his pals are a RACIST THREAT TO PEOPLE OF COLOR (AND the planet).  ;D :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

Sessions is a looming threat to people of color and the planet

Posted Jan. 13, 2017 / Posted by: Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of national office of Advancement Project and Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S.

At few points in our generation does Congress seem poised to vote on something so colossally consequential for the wellbeing of people of color. The nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) as United States attorney general presents U.S. senators with one such decision. The question is, will they step forward on climate priorities and racial equity, or will they dangerously turn their back on the progress our country has made?

With Sessions as attorney general, communities of color stand to lose significantly. Charged with enforcing civil rights laws, the Department of Justice has historically played an important role in bringing us closer to an inclusive democracy.

Whether it was filing lawsuits to end segregation, protecting organizers during the civil rights movement, fighting housing and voting discrimination or challenging discriminatory policing policies, the Department of Justice has responded to the racial justice movement over decades, helping secure protections.
Under Sessions’ leadership, immigrant families will be criminalized and police reform efforts will stop dead in their tracks, among other things. Even worse, a Sessions’ Department of Justice will probably do affirmative damage on civil rights. Further, Sessions will hurt communities of color, who are hard hit by environmental racism by eviscerating enforcement of fundamental environmental laws.

Wrapped in racial injustice, environmental abuses have harmed people of color across the country — in communities ranging from Flint, Michigan to Mossville, Louisiana. The climate change-induced flooding and oil spill pollution in the Gulf Coast have disproportionately harmed people of color and low-income communities.

Legal enforcement of governmental responsibility is often the last and only recourse in these cases. Weakening enforcement tools would be disastrous to the progress communities of color have made.

As a senator for the state of Alabama, Sessions voted against environmental protection 93 percent of the time. In 2015, Sessions said that carbon dioxide is only “a plant food and it doesn’t harm anybody.” This shows a pattern of refusing to connect scientific cause-and-effect, which makes him unfit to set polluter prosecution priorities.

Sessions would also choose a next head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, who will have the power to weaken consequences against those who violate the nation's civil and criminal pollution control laws. They could refuse to defend EPA and other agencies against corporations. That puts environmental programs at risk to fossil fuel interests who are pursuing ongoing legal fights over public lands and waters for Native American sovereignty. This will embolden polluters to be even more litigious to undermine environmental justice.

A look at Sessions’ record on voting rights, immigration, racial justice and civil liberties reveals not just a disregard for communities of color but he is an enemy of progress. As an attorney in Alabama, Sessions went on a witch hunt to persecute civil servants who were registering voters in historically Black counties under allegations of voter fraud that were quickly rejected by a jury. Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act, an anti-discrimination law that guarantees free and fair elections, “a piece of intrusive legislation,” a view held by supporters of Jim Crow.

Voting is the most fundamental way that communities empower themselves against polluters and the politicians that support them.

When Sessions was vetted in 1986, during a confirmation hearing to be appointed a federal judge, his history on race led to a rejection of his ways by a Republican-controlled Senate. Yet time has not improved the senator’s record, and now the 2017 Republican-controlled Congress is positioning itself to overlook it.

As recently as last summer, the courts forcefully went on record decrying rampant attempts to make it harder for people of color to vote. As the attorney general in charge of setting guidelines for which cases can and cannot be brought to court, Sessions poses a danger to voters of color as well as every American who is not white, male, straight and citizen-born. Sessions’ clear prejudices and racism make him willfully blind to some of the most pressing civil rights abuses and environmental injustices in our country.

With the stakes too high to let Sessions run unchecked with the Trump administration’s racist agenda, the choice before the Senate is clear. We cannot trust Jefferson Beauregard Sessions to serve as the top enforcer of our constitution and our laws. Senators must stand definitively on the right side of history. Our people and our planet depend on it.

Friends of  The Earth

http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2017-01-sessions-is-a-looming-threat-to-people-of-color-and-2 (http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2017-01-sessions-is-a-looming-threat-to-people-of-color-and-2)


AND BY THE WAY, K-Dog, Mark Blyth is the Scottish economist that has stats that PROVE there is NO IMMIGRATION PROBLEM IN THE USA, who claims Trump dog whistled his racist followers to support him with racist and xenophobic CRAP about immigration "taking jobs" from Americans.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 19, 2017, 11:35:30 AM
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170117173547.png)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216142007.png)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: jdwheeler42 on January 19, 2017, 12:02:48 PM
Baloney![/i][/size][/color] THREE posts on Sessions, which IS applicable to Trump BECAUSE Sessions was the FIRST RACIST ASSHOLE to support the RACIST ASSHOLE TRUMP and you ARE NOT ONLY quiet as DEATH, you CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

The issue here is TRMUPTY-DUMPTY, NOT whether you voted for him or not, pal! The DISCUSSION of RACISM AND RACISTS in the US power structure is GERMANE to this thread, PERIOD!

Here's ONE MORE CHANCE for you admit that Trump and his pals are a RACIST THREAT TO PEOPLE OF COLOR (AND the planet).  ;D :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
I was floored that Sessions prosecuted someone for helping black voters....
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty Inauguration Day Arrives!
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 08:36:04 PM
Sounds like the Gestapo are fully geared up for the Action!

My favorite quote from this article is this one:

Quote
A protest group known as Disrupt J20 has vowed to stage demonstrations at each of 12 security checkpoints and block access to the festivities on the grassy National Mall.

Grassy National Mall?  Doesn't that sound like the "Grassy Knoll"?  ???  :icon_scratch:

Is Reuters Foreshadowing an Assassination attempt?

RE

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-idUSKBN1531GH (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-idUSKBN1531GH)

Politics | Thu Jan 19, 2017 | 10:45pm EST
Washington braces for anti-Trump protests, New Yorkers march

(http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170119&t=2&i=1169375319&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPED0I1IP)
A Capitol Police officer stands guard at the U.S. Capitol before the inauguration of U.S. President Elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 19, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Ian Simpson and Joseph Ax | WASHINGTON/NEW YORK

Washington turned into a virtual fortress on Thursday ahead of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, while thousands of people took to the streets of New York and Washington to express their displeasure with his coming administration.

Some 900,000 people, both Trump backers and opponents, are expected to flood Washington for Friday's inauguration ceremony, according to organizers' estimates. Events include the swearing-in ceremony on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and a parade to the White House along streets thronged with spectators.

The number of planned protests and rallies this year is far above what has been typical at recent presidential inaugurations, with some 30 permits granted in Washington for anti-Trump rallies and sympathy protests planned in cities from Boston to Los Angeles, and outside the U.S. in cities including London and Sydney.

The night before the inauguration, thousands of people turned out in New York for a rally at the Trump International Hotel and Tower, and then marched a few blocks from the Trump Tower where the businessman lives.

The rally featured a lineup of politicians, activists and celebrities including Mayor Bill de Blasio and actor Alec Baldwin, who trotted out the Trump parody he performs on "Saturday Night Live."

"Donald Trump may control Washington, but we control our destiny as Americans," de Blasio said. "We don't fear the future. We think the future is bright, if the people's voices are heard."

In Washington, a group made up of hundreds of protesters clashed with police clad in riot gear who used pepper spray against some of the crowd on Thursday night, according to footage on social media.

The confrontation occurred outside the National Press Club building, where inside a so-called "DeploraBall" event was being held in support of Trump, the footage showed.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said police aimed to keep groups separate, using tactics similar to those employed during last year's political conventions.

"The concern is some of these groups are pro-Trump, some of them are con-Trump, and they may not play well together in the same space," Johnson said on MSNBC.

Trump opponents have been angered by his comments during the campaign about women, illegal immigrants and Muslims and his pledges to scrap the Obamacare health reform and build a wall on the Mexican border.

The Republican's supporters admire his experience in business, including as a real estate developer and reality television star, and view him as an outsider who will take a fresh approach to politics.

Bikers for Trump, a group that designated itself as security backup during last summer's Republican National Convention in Cleveland, is ready to step in if protesters block access to the inauguration, said Dennis Egbert, one of the group's organizers.

"We're going to be backing up law enforcement. We're on the same page," Egbert, 63, a retired electrician from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

SECURITY CORDON

About 28,000 security personnel, miles of fencing, roadblocks, street barricades and dump trucks laden with sand are part of the security cordon around 3 square miles (8 square km) of central Washington.
Also In Politics

    Executive actions ready to go as Trump prepares to take office
    Conflicted U.S. capital prepares to host Trump's inauguration

A protest group known as Disrupt J20 has vowed to stage demonstrations at each of 12 security checkpoints and block access to the festivities on the grassy National Mall.

Police and security officials have pledged repeatedly to guarantee protesters' constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Aaron Hyman, fellow at the National Gallery of Art, said he could feel tension in the streets ahead of Trump's swearing-in and the heightened security was part of it.

"People are watching each other like, 'You must be a Trump supporter,' and 'You must be one of those liberals'," said Hyman, 32, who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November election.

Friday's crowds are expected to fall well short of the 2 million people who attended Obama's first inauguration in 2009, and be in line with the 1 million who were at his second in 2013.

Forecast rain may also dampen the turnout, though security officials lifted an earlier ban on umbrellas, saying small umbrellas would be permitted.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu in Washigton, Curtis Skinner in San Francisco, and Joseph Ax in New York; Editing by Scott Malone, James Dalgleish and Lisa Shumaker)
Title: Trump Transition Trials
Post by: RE on January 20, 2017, 05:09:55 AM
Doesn't sound like the "Master Biznessman" has his management team too well organized at the moment.  ::)

RE

A Trump Administration, With Obama Staff Members Filling In the Gaps

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and GLENN THRUSHJAN. 19, 2017

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/20/us/20inaug-ss1/20inaug-ss1-master768.jpg)

Slide Show
Slide Show|12 Photos
Celebrations Begin for Donald Trump’s Inauguration
Celebrations Begin for Donald Trump’s Inauguration

CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump arrived in Washington the day before his inauguration as the nation’s 45th president in a swirl of cinematic pageantry but facing serious questions about whether his chaotic transition has left critical parts of the government dangerously short-handed.

Mr. Trump will be sworn in at noon Eastern time on Friday, but his team was still scrambling to fill key administration posts when he got here on Thursday, announcing last-minute plans to retain 50 essential State Department and national security officials currently working in the Obama administration to ensure “continuity of government,” according to Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary.

The furious final staff preparations included designating Thomas A. Shannon Jr., an Obama appointee, as the acting secretary of state, pending the expected confirmation of Rex W. Tillerson.

As of Thursday, only two of Mr. Trump’s 15 cabinet nominees — John F. Kelly, to head the Department of Homeland Security, and his nominee for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis — had been approved by congressional committees and were close to assuming their posts.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.

    Donald Trump’s Inauguration Becomes a Time to Protest and Plan
    JAN 20
    Why 5 Trump Voters Are Going to the Inauguration
    JAN 20
    The Inaugural Parade, and the Presidents Who Walked It
    JAN 19
    Concert for Trump Misses an Opportunity
    JAN 19
    Trump Nominees Make Clear Plans to Sweep Away Obama Policies
    JAN 19

See More »
Recent Comments
Socrates 3 minutes ago

On the subject of IQ:"Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or...
Robert Jensen 11 minutes ago

If Trump's transition has been "chaotic," it has been so in great part because the mainstream media, including especially the NY Times, has...
Here 11 minutes ago

Our long national nightmare is over (as of noon).Congratulations to President Trump, Vice President Pence, and the American people!

    See All Comments Write a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

In all, Mr. Trump has named only 29 of his 660 executive department appointments, according to the Partnership for Public Service, which has been tracking the process. That is a pace far slower than recent predecessors, falling far short of the schedule originally outlined by Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who was Mr. Trump’s transition director before Mr. Trump ousted him 10 weeks ago.

None of this seemed to bother Mr. Trump. After arriving from New York, the president-elect trod solemnly down red-carpeted stairs from a government plane at Joint Base Andrews with his wife, Melania, then sped off to deliver a speech at a reception held at his ornate new hotel near the White House. There, he declared, with typical bluster, that his cabinet nominees had “by far the highest I.Q. of any cabinet assembled.”

Later, he laid a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery and attended his Lincoln Memorial inaugural concert, saying that one had never been held there before even though many similar events have taken place in front of the iconic seated statue of the 16th president.

“Tomorrow seems to be the big one,” Mr. Trump told a black-tie dinner crowd at Washington’s stately Union Station on Thursday night, referring to his inauguration. In off-the-cuff remarks, he teased his incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, for having a difficult-to-pronounce name, and chided fund-raisers who did not contribute to his campaign until after he won. He also described his political opponents as “going crazy” over his cabinet selections.

Mr. Trump campaigned on a platform of shaking up Washington, but his pomp-and-circumstance arrival began with two jarring concessions to a city he may not inhabit full time: This week, he was forced to abandon his cherished “Trump” 757 for an Air Force jet, and, according to people close to the transition, he has traded in his Android phone for a secure, encrypted device approved by the Secret Service with a new number that few people possess.

The official rationale was security. But some of Mr. Trump’s new aides, who have often been blindsided when a reporter, outside adviser or officeseeker dialed the president-elect directly, expressed relief. Several of them, however, expect the new president to satisfy his compulsion for continuous communication by calling outsiders and by tramping from office to office in search of gossip and sounding boards.

Mr. Trump’s management style places unique strains on his top advisers, including Mr. Priebus, who is stepping into what is traditionally a gatekeeper’s post that has involved restricting the flow of people and paper to the Oval Office.

Mr. Priebus is navigating a West Wing crowded with powerful figures in their own right, including the president-elect’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who will always outweigh anyone else regardless of title; the chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon; the counselor Kellyanne Conway; Vice President-elect Mike Pence; and the economic adviser Gary Cohn, the blunt former Goldman Sachs executive who is rising fast in Mr. Trump’s circle.
Graphic
Kennedy Looked Tan, Johnson Kissed Mrs. Nixon, and Other Vivid Inauguration Details

Moments witnessed and analyzed by New York Times correspondents since the 1853 inauguration, the first to take place after the paper was founded.
OPEN Graphic

In a conference call with incoming staff this week, Mr. Priebus informed midlevel aides that they should avoid interacting with Mr. Trump without his permission, that they were prohibited from talking to the news media, and that they should carefully restrict their social media posts, according to two people with knowledge of the call.

On Thursday, aides released names of more than a dozen appointments to the White House staff. Most of them had worked for Mr. Priebus at the R.N.C. Mr. Trump also named a friend, Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, to be ambassador to Britain.

Thursday’s hires notwithstanding, the halting pace of transition has alarmed senior Obama administration officials and some Republican lawmakers, who have repeatedly complained about the Trump team’s unwillingness to coordinate transition planning with them.
California Today

The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

Since his election on Nov. 8, Mr. Trump has had little interest in the minutiae of his transition, saying it was “bad karma” to get too involved, according to a person who spoke with him at the time. At one point, he wanted to halt the planning altogether, out of superstition, the person said.

“In 21 years of covering the State Department and in eight years of serving there, I’ve seen rocky transitions and experienced what feels like a hostile takeover, but I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, and a former journalist and Bill Clinton administration official.

For weeks, transition officials and people close to the process have suggested that the delays are the fault of Mr. Christie, accusing him of botching the preparations during seven months of transition preparation.

But copies of Mr. Christie’s plan, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times, were circulated in weekly installments to the transition team before his ouster and were discussed at weekly meetings. They revealed thorough blueprints on a range of core planning issues, from the pace of the transition to what the president-elect’s daily schedule should look like, even 100-day and 200-day plans of action.

Each sheet detailing the “landing teams” arriving at agencies had a notation on which advisers had weighed in on the selections.

On the list the day of the election was a Senate nomination and confirmation plan, a first-100-days agenda to take to Congress, members of landing teams and their status and interest in jobs at key departments, and a suggested schedule for Mr. Trump that included the presidential daily briefing each day and key meetings.

The work was not fully completed; some pages, such as the landing team list for the Small Business Administration, were half-filled and had no input from senior advisers. The work was hobbled by the concern that most Republican policy officials had about working for their nominee.

And Mr. Christie’s decision to put some of his own top allies on lists for prime jobs did not wear well with Mr. Trump’s team.

Still, there was thought put into the transition and what would come next, including a draft of dozens of executive orders and recommendations for a communications plan to avoid “idle” time in the president-elect’s schedule that the news media would use to describe him as unfocused. There were proposed themes for each week, to lend a “cadence” to the transition.

The suggested schedule called for completing cabinet appointments by the first week of December, taking care of the under secretaries and deputies the second week, and naming ambassadors by the third week, just before the holidays.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 20, 2017, 05:13:00 AM
The big day. I know a lot of people who plan to participate in some kind of protest. I myself have agreed to play Picov Van Droppoff for some of my kids, who want to join a large group in front of the State Capitol here.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 20, 2017, 05:18:59 AM
The big day. I know a lot of people who plan to participate in some kind of protest. I myself have agreed to play Picov Van Droppoff for some of my kids, who want to join a large group in front of the State Capitol here.

Who is Picov Van Droppoff?  Nothing shows up on Google.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 20, 2017, 05:34:20 AM
Because I misspelled it. Try Picov Andropov.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 20, 2017, 08:28:59 AM
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mf437d8b591416071c2b50f2311f20187o1%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)


What will Uncle Don do ?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 20, 2017, 09:45:34 AM
Caught just a bit of the inaugural address.

Whole lot of cheerleading, flag waving nationalism, and promises. Mentioned drug problems as something to eradicate, along with terrorism, divisiveness, and public education,as it now exists. Pro-military...but only in service to Amerika, not those ungrateful freeloading foreigners.

About what I'd expect.

Underwhelming applause. Surprisingly underwhelming.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 20, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
Caught just a bit of the inaugural address.

Whole lot of cheerleading, flag waving nationalism, and promises. Mentioned drug problems as something to eradicate, along with terrorism, divisiveness, and public education,as it now exists. Pro-military...but only in service to Amerika, not those ungrateful freeloading foreigners.

About what I'd expect.

Underwhelming applause. Surprisingly underwhelming.


Did you catch the bit about patriotism and loyalty.  No halfway commitment shall be allowed.  Get ready for a loyalty oath.  Only 'real' Americans will travel to greatness together but he did say there is no room for discrimination in American values or some such about the time he mentioned the bible.  I'll assume by that people who disagree with Trump will be shot with rubber coated steel bullets regardless of color or national origin on an equal basis.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 20, 2017, 07:24:43 PM
"America First!" ... no brown, black, gay, women, atheist, nontheist, non-"Christian"... folks need apply.  Them ain't 'mericans!
Title: Riot police use pepper spray as anti-Trump protests turn violent
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 12:20:02 AM
Starting to look like Spain, Italy & Greece.

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/I8p6acZpY78
Title: Police injured, more than 200 arrested at Trump inauguration protests in DC
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 01:56:32 AM
(http://images.gr-assets.com/quotes/1368564537p8/89101.jpg)

More videos at the link to CNN.  Also more readable than this paste.

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/)

Police injured, more than 200 arrested at Trump inauguration protests in DC

(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170120024828-trump-protest-dc-exlarge-169.jpg)

By Gregory Krieg, CNN

Updated 4:06 AM ET, Sat January 21, 2017
Anti-Trump demonstrators clash with DC police

Senate Democrats grill HHS pick Tom Price
How Microsoft&#39;s Cortana will compete with Alexa
Crash dummies get hit with drones to test impact
Trump&#39;s childhood home is for sale (again)
Biggest global risks of 2017
New Mustang is as good as old
Anti-Trump demonstrators clash with DC police
The best Super Bowl commercials of 2016
Ford Raptor is a lean, mean, hauling machine
Trump fills top spots with Goldman Sachs picks
Global CEOs are ready for President Trump
Senate grills Treasury pick on foreclosures
Senate Democrats grill HHS pick Tom Price
How Microsoft&#39;s Cortana will compete with Alexa
Crash dummies get hit with drones to test impact
Trump&#39;s childhood home is for sale (again)
Biggest global risks of 2017
New Mustang is as good as old
Anti-Trump demonstrators clash with DC police
The best Super Bowl commercials of 2016
Ford Raptor is a lean, mean, hauling machine
Trump fills top spots with Goldman Sachs picks
Global CEOs are ready for President Trump
Senate grills Treasury pick on foreclosures

Source: CNN
Anti-Trump demonstrators clash with DC police 01:09
Story highlights

    Protests in Portland, Seattle, other US cities
    Demonstrators tried to shut down entrances to the festivities

Washington (CNN)Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.
At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers' injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.

Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad "antifascist" protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk. Officers responded by launching smoke and flash-bang devices, which could be heard from blocks away, into the street to disperse the crowds.
"Pepper spray and other control devices were used to control the criminal actors and protect persons and property," police said.
Anti-Trump protests also broke out Friday in US cities, including New York, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Authorities in Seattle say one person was in critical condition at a hospital with a gunshot wound. Demonstrations also took place overseas in Hong Kong, Berlin and London.
In Washington, Newsham told CNN the several hundred demonstrators who actively confronted police were vastly outnumbered by the thousands of nonviolent protesters who swarmed the nation's capital for Inauguration Day and Saturday's Women's March on Washington.
"We have been pointing out all along that this is a very isolated incident, and by and large, everything is going peacefully and a lot of folks have come to the city to enjoy this historic day, not only the Capitol but walking all around the city," he said.
But many protesters, including permitted marchers, accused security personnel of denying them access to their planned routes.
Ashley Link, 37, made her way to Franklin Square after an ANSWER Coalition protest slated for the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue, about a mile away, was effectively blocked by what many there described as onerous security restrictions. She expressed concern that isolated clashes with police would overshadow other messages on display, but sympathized with the rowdier elements in the street.
"I'm all about peaceful protesting, practicing nonviolence, but at the same time, I understand why people are so frustrated," she said. "They are so upset about so many things in our country right now that to make a poster? There's not a poster big enough to cover all the things that people are frustrated about."
Hours earlier, Lysander Reid-Powell, a 20-year-old student from New Mexico, joined in a Black Lives Matter-led blockade of an entrance onto the National Mall.
"I think Donald Trump is a fascist, and it's very easy for people, especially people who are in pain, to slip into fascism," he said. "It's easy for people to feel like the individual has no power and that you're just one small little ant in the big hill, so ultimately all that matters is popular resistance."
As Trump supporters and other spectators began to emerge from their hotels, many in the new president's signature red caps, and head for the security checkpoints on Friday morning, protesters at multiple entry points sought to cut off access by staging coordinated sit-ins. As the swearing-in ceremony neared around noon, hundreds of people remained snarled in long lines.
Demonstrators protest against US President-elect Donald Trump before his inauguration on January 20, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Demonstrators protest against US President-elect Donald Trump before his inauguration on January 20, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Three women were chained together at the neck on 10th Street, and more than 150 DisruptJ20 demonstrators surrounded an entrance near the Canadian embassy. "This checkpoint is closed," they chanted, forcing Trump supporters to turn back and walk along Indiana Avenue in search of a clearer path.
An assortment of "pop up" protests also lined the streets surrounding the secure zones on the mall. "We're here to take a stand against the ideas that Trump spouted throughout the course of this campaign -- sexism, Islamophobia, his bigotry and nationalism," said protester Jed Holtz, from New York City.
A man is washed with water after being sprayed by police pepper spray during an anti-Trump demonstration on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC.
A man is washed with water after being sprayed by police pepper spray during an anti-Trump demonstration on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC.
The protests did not stop at the checkpoints. A half-dozen members of "Democracy Spring," a group that agitates against the influence of money in politics, obtained tickets that placed them within shouting distance of the swearing-in ceremony.
As Trump stepped forward to to take the oath of office, six protesters, each wearing a letter of the word "RESIST," stood up to chant the preamble to US Constitution.
Their shouting made it difficult for those seated nearby -- including former campaign staffers and volunteers, as well as Trump's ex-wife Ivana Trump -- to hear Trump utter the words that officially made him the 45th President of the United States.
The disruption was compounded when, much as it happened at Trump's campaign rallies, his supporters responded, erupting in shouts of "Trump, Trump, Trump!" as they tried to drown out the interlopers.
Liberal groups praised the work of protesters, many of whom traveled from around the country to rail against a president they called "illegitimate" in thousands of signs and songs.
"The only source of light on this miserable day is the massive, multi-racial, multi-generational progressive resistance movement led by women and people of color that's already emerging to confront Donald Trump's agenda of hate and growing stronger every single day," Democracy for America Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement following the inaugural ceremony.
Demonstrations elsewhere
In New York, nine people were arrested for disorderly conduct, according to the New York Police Department. Authorities said five people were arrested at a protest in Dallas, six in Chicago.
In Portland, Oregon, protesters were armed with clubs, sticks and throwing unknown liquid at officers, according to the Portland Police Department. Six people were arrested in Portland Friday, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson tells CNN.
In Seattle, people threw bricks and other items at officers during a demonstration on the the University of Washington campus, city police said. Harborview Medical Center in Seattle confirmed it was treating a man who was shot at the protest and is in critical condition. Seattle police said a man turned himself in to campus police and was being questioned.
Global protests
The anti-Trump protests extended well beyond water's edge, with rallies popping up in Australia, London, Hong Kong and Berlin -- where demonstrators held a sign that read, "Walls divide." In the West Bank, Palestinians protested against Israeli settlements and Trump's plan to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
In Sydney, anti-Trump protesters and Trump supporters spilled into the city's streets Saturday to protest the US President.
Thousands of people attended a Women's March in Martin Place in the central part of the city. Event organizers claimed nearly 5,000 people attended the march, but Sydney police estimate that the number was closer to 3,000.
Chants from the crowd included "women united will never be defeated" and "when women's rights are under attack, what do we do, stand up fight back."
A separate, smaller protest of approximately 30 people, in support of Trump also took place at Martin Place on Saturday.
The pro-Trump crowd waved US and confederate flags in the air and shouted: "It's all over lefty scum" and "drain the swamp," witness to the protest Eliza Berlage told CNN. Some Trump enthusiast also carried placards saying "Aussies for Trump," Berlage said.
The police refrained the pro-Trump protesters from going into the area with the anti-Trump protesters.
Scuffles ensued as police tried to physically restrain some of the rally goers, Berlage said.
DeploraBall
On Thursday night in Washington, protesters gathered on 14th Street outside the National Press Club to demonstrate against "DeploraBall," an event organized by some of Trump's most aggressive online supporters. The name riffs off the campaign description of some Trump backers by his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton, as a "basket of deplorables."
As attendees -- some of whom were clad in suits and red hats, others dressed in gowns -- entered the event, demonstrators chanted "Shame" and "Nazis go home" behind a phalanx of police. Some held signs that read "No Alt Reich" and "No Nazi USA."
A protester has her eyes flushed with water.
A protester has her eyes flushed with water.
The Women's March gets ready for prime time
On Saturday, the Women's March on Washington could attract a quarter million participants, organizers said.
"We're really trying to set a tone of resistance for the coming years," Lacy MacAuley, a DisruptJ20 organizer, told CNN. "Donald Trump represents a shift in our politics in a dangerous, harmful, exclusionary direction. We oppose those policies of hate."
According to Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, as many as 900,000 spectators may attend inaugural ceremonies.
Johnson told reporters last week that 28,000 security personnel from dozens of agencies, including local and out-of-town police officers, will be fanned out across the city on Inauguration Day and into the weekend.
Organizers of the march, which begins near Capitol Hill at 10 a.m. ET, now say internal divisions, many of them stemming from a divisive Democratic primary fight, are being put aside in the name of solidarity.
"We have already proven that Hillary and Bernie Sanders supporters can work together against fascism, xenophobia, and racism," Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim activist from Brooklyn, told CNN.
The march, which began with a modest Facebook call in the aftermath of the election, has grown in to what could be one of the larger political demonstrations ever in DC.
There are more than 600 "sister marches" planned around the country and fundraising for the event has largely come in chunks of $20 and $30 online donations.
"It really reminds me of the Sanders campaign," Sarsour said. "A very grassroots, very grass-powered movement."

CNN's Azadeh Ansari, Brian Todd, Sarah Ganim, Noah Gray, Bex Wright, Dugald McConnell, Pallavi Reddy, Jeremy Diamond, Betsy Klein, Joe Sutton and Chris Welch contributed to this report.
Title: Women’s March on Washington (and Elsewhere): What to Watch For
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 02:43:40 AM
Will the Female Demos stay Peaceful?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

Women’s March on Washington (and Elsewhere): What to Watch For

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/22/us/22briefing1/22briefing1-superJumbo.jpg)

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, YAMICHE ALCINDOR and NIRAJ CHOKSHIUPDATED 1:00 AM


• Thousands of women are expected to gather on Saturday for the Women’s March on Washington, a kind of counter-inauguration after President Donald J. Trump took office on Friday. But all people are invited.

• The event is an attempt to unify protesters around issues like reproductive rights, immigration and civil rights, but it has also encountered divisions.

• Protesters have already started convening around the world, but the main event, in Washington, is set to begin at 10 a.m. Eastern with a rally featuring speakers like Gloria Steinem and performers like Janelle Monáe near the Capitol. Afterward, participants will march down the National Mall.

• Check back for live video and updates around 10 a.m.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
People marched on Saturday in Auckland, New Zealand, in a show of solidarity with those protesting in Washington in support of reproductive rights, civil rights and other issues. Credit Fiona Goodall/Getty Images
Who’s going? What do participants care about?

The “guiding vision” for the march is almost as extensive, and as jargon-laden, as any platform thought up by the Democratic or Republican parties. In addition to reproductive rights, the topics covered include racial justice, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, the environment, wage equity, gender equity and immigrant rights.
Continue reading the main story

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

The march, which evolved from a call to protest posted on Facebook after the election, has brought out some of the fissures in the women’s movement, between generations and among women of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds, and the organizers say they have tried to bridge those.

In its early stages, the march was criticized for being spearheaded by white women. They were seen as harking back to feminism’s roots in the self-actualization of white middle-class women, who were bored with domestic life and asserted their desire to work outside the home and compete with men.

But younger women took a more expansive view of feminism.

The rally will include a range of speakers and performers cutting across generational lines: Cecile Richards, Angela Davis, Scarlett Johansson, Michael Moore, the Mothers of the Movement (Sybrina Fulton, Lucy McBath, Maria Hamilton, Gwen Carr), Ms. Monáe and the Indigo Girls.
Graphic
Where Women’s Marches Are Happening Around the World

The Women’s March on Washington is expected to be the largest inauguration-related demonstration in United States history.
OPEN Graphic

_____
What is Mr. Trump’s role in all of this?

Many participants believed Mr. Trump expressed misogynistic views during the presidential campaign, with remarks about Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton. After a 2005 recording surfaced in which he said that he could use his celebrity status to make sexual advances toward women, several women came forward to accuse Mr. Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct. He dismissed the recording as “locker room banter” and assailed his accusers.

Demonstrators are challenging the Trump administration on a number of policies, as well. In his inaugural speech on Friday, President Trump did not specifically reach out to women.

“Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American flag,” he said.

_____
Are there security concerns?

Crowd estimates can sometimes be contentious, but the Facebook event for the march has received more than 200,000 “going” R.S.V.P.s. Organizers say that security precautions will be extensive, including private security, and have posted safety recommendations in an online FAQ. Scattered violence broke out in Washington on Friday, with more than 200 people arrested, and the police in riot gear used crowd-dispersing sprays.

Responding to concerns that violence might also disrupt the women’s march, organizers issued a statement on Twitter affirming their commitment to nonviolence: “Any action that harms people or destroys property which can be attributed — even falsely — to our movements will empower Trump and the forces of hate and fear while weakening our resistance.”

Cassady Fendlay, a spokeswoman for the march, said on Friday that the march would deploy “hundreds if not thousands of marshals trained in crowd control,” adding, “We have no reason to be concerned.”

_____
What about those “pussyhats” I’ve heard about?

Forecasts are calling for balmy weather in Washington, but that will not stop thousands of women from wearing hand-knit hats in various shades of pink and shaped like cat ears. The hats are described in pussyhatproject.com as a way to “make a unique collective visual statement which will help activists be better heard.”

_____
Meet a family with three generations of marchers

Who She Is: Virginia Wilcox, 73, of Newtown, Pa.

Backstory: Raised two daughters as a single mother without a high school diploma. After decades of working, retired after starting her own events planning company.

“I remember during the Nixon administration my mother going to demonstrations in Washington from the Philadelphia area. I remember her having arguments with my father who was on the other side of the fence about politics. … My father was a Republican, and his comments would be that Roosevelt ruined the world. … They would shout from room to room saying, ‘You’re wrong.’ It wasn’t just a kitchen table discussion.”

“I’m going to have a great-grandchild in July, and I’m really, really concerned about the place in which he or she is going to live and how he or she is going to make his or her way in the world. We need justice. We need a planet.”
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

_____

Who She Is: Katharine Clark, 56, of Stow, Mass., is Ms. Wilcox’s daughter.

Backstory: Works as an administrator at a church.

“My mom found herself in a situation, with me, and she totally took responsibility for it and she totally worked hard given that she had to make it the best that she could make it. And I think that’s something that we all have to do. We have to look at where we are, where we stand, what we have at hand, what’s happening around us and make it better.”

“I don’t want a country run as a business. I want the country run as a family, meaning we take care of each other. We learn. We listen. Sometimes we take the knocks sometimes somebody else in the family takes the knocks.”

_____

Who She Is: Brianna Clark, 34, of Maynard, Mass., is Ms. Wilcox’s granddaughter.

Backstory: Works as a manager at a grocery store.

“I have people that I have started with at the same exact time who are maybe not white, maybe not college educated, maybe don’t speak English as their first language, and I think a lot about how I walk into a space and walk into a room and I naturally speak like I expect people to listen to me. And I recognize that that is not everyone’s experiences and how I have been rewarded by that confidence. I’ve been allowed and encouraged to have that. I recognize how a lot of things are not fair.”

(Check out more voices from readers headed to the march.)

_____
Here’s a brief look at one of the issues demonstrators care about: Abortion

(We’ll spotlight others throughout the day.)

Activists who support abortion rights believe legal access to the procedure is under greater threat today than it has been in decades, while abortion opponents sense an opportunity to finally strike down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established those rights.

Mr. Trump has said that he hopes to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with a justice who would help reverse the decision, and in that way return the issue to the states. And with two liberal justices already well over the age of 75, he may have further opportunity to shape the court during his presidency.

That opposition to abortion rights is shared by many of his top associates, too, including his vice president, Mike Pence. Last summer, Mr. Pence, a longtime abortion opponent, said he hopes to see Roe v. Wade “consigned to the ash heap of history.” And, next week, Kellyanne Conway, the strategist who led Mr. Trump to victory and an outspoken abortion opponent herself, plans to address a major anti-abortion march in Washington, which would make her the first sitting White House official to do so in person.

As a result, anti-abortion activists are energized and hopeful for passage of policies including a permanent prohibition on taxpayer-funded abortions and a national ban on the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which Mr. Trump reportedly supports.

Mr. Trump’s victory has left supporters of abortion rights deeply concerned, contributing to a surge in donations and interest in groups supporting abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America, both of which are involved in the march.

Get updates about news across the United States via Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.
Title: Re: Women’s March on Washington (and Elsewhere): What to Watch For
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 12:33:00 PM
Women's March turned out really big!  500,000 in Washington!  :icon_sunny:

Will this do anything to change Trumpty Dumpty's agenda?  No.

However, it may slightly reenergize progressives.

RE
Title: Women's march takes over DC
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 02:03:21 PM
Liz Warren is definitely gunning for POTUS in 2020.

RE

Women's march takes over DC

By Mallory Shelbourne - 01/21/17 01:01 PM EST
6,013
1,601

 

    EXCLUSIVE: Mariah Carey's Creative Director 'Not Being Brought Back' After NYE Performance Debacle
    Grayson Allen Returns From One Game Suspension, Duke Rolls
    Obama arrives on Capitol Hill to try to save Obamacare
    New Estimate Pegs DC Women's March at 500K
    Raw: President Trump Signs First Law
    Trump's 'Day One' Pledges in 60 Seconds
    New Estimate Pegs DC Women's March at 500K
    Raw: President Trump Signs First Law
    Trump's 'Day One' Pledges in 60 Seconds

New Estimate Pegs DC Women's March at 500K
AP
Autoplay: On | Off

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets of Washington one day after President Trump's inauguration to protest the new president and advocate for women's causes.

The turnout for the Women’s March on Washington was so massive that it filled up the entire march route at once, according to The Associated Press.

As a result, organizers won’t lead a formal march along the route, a D.C. official told the AP, although the crowd will still head toward the White House.

The official told the AP there could be more than a half-million people at the rally in Washington. March organizers, who originally sought space for 200,000 protesters, revised their own estimation Saturday morning to north of 500,000.

Protesters with signs and pink knitted hats filled the city’s Metrorail trains and streets as they made their way to Capitol Hill. The event, which kicked off with a rally of celebrity and political guest speakers, began at 10 a.m., and the march through D.C. streets was slated begin at 1:15 p.m.

The march, which began with a single Facebook post, has become the premier event for Trump’s opponents during the inauguration weekend and has spurred 673 “sister marches” around the U.S. and the world, according to the organizer’s website.

Some of the largest demonstrations outside D.C. are being held in New York City, Boston, and Chicago.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a harsh critic of Trump during the presidential campaign, spoke to rally attendees in Boston on Saturday, calling on them to fight back against Trump.

“The fact is that the playing field has been tilted badly in favor of those at the top for a generation now,” Warren told thousands of people at the Boston Common.

“And now, President Trump and the Republican Congress are ready to ram through laws that will tilt it even harder.”

Countries from India and Iraq to Germany and Mexico are also slated to host sister marches.

Though it never mentions Trump by name, the march’s mission statement cites the “rhetoric of the past election cycle” as it calls for unified grassroots change.

“The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women's rights are human rights,” the website reads.

Speakers included feminist icon Gloria Steinem, an honorary co-chair of the event.

Steinem’s message for Trump was “do not try to divide us,” which she delivered to a rousing swell of cheers from the crowd.

"If you force Muslims to register, we will all register as Muslims,” Steinem said.

Other speakers include Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s President Cecile Richards. Richards, who campaigned prominently for Hillary Clinton, is leading the fight against GOP efforts to cut all federal funding of the organization.

A number of lawmakers also appeared, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who took pictures with rallygoers, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who spoke at the rally.

Celebrities like Michael Moore, Ashley Judd and America Ferrera also spoke from the stage.

Updated at 1:46 p.m.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 21, 2017, 06:29:08 PM
(http://www.nwf.org/~/media/Design/Footer/logo-homepage-footer.ashx)
The National Wildlife Federation Calls on Senate to Reject Nominee for EPA Administrator

For First Time in 80-Year History, Bipartisan NWF Opposes Cabinet Nomination.

01-19-2017 // Miles Grant  39  26  .

WASHINGTON – The National Wildlife Federation today announced its opposition to the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It marks the first time in the history of the National Wildlife Federation, founded in 1936, that the organization is asking Senators to oppose a presidential cabinet appointment. NWF will launch a national campaign to mobilize its six million members and supporters to contact their U.S. senators to urge a no vote on Pruitt’s nomination.

Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said today:

“When Attorney General Pruitt was first nominated, the National Wildlife Federation was willing and eager to hear his vision for the EPA.

We have a basic three-part test that we use to evaluate nominations:

1. Does the nominee support science-based decision-making?

2. Will the nominee uphold our nation’s environmental laws?

3. Is the nominee willing to put the interest of the American people above those of special interests?


Unfortunately, at yesterday’s confirmation hearing the nominee made it crystal clear that he does not meet any of these tests. For these reasons, we must oppose his confirmation. Simply put, Mr. Pruitt cannot be pro-outdoors and anti-science.

“As a nationwide Federation comprised of millions of Republicans and millions of Democrats, we are proud of our history working with Administrations of both parties to fulfill government’s sacred duty to conserve and steward America’s wildlife, fish, healthy waters, clean air, and public lands as public trust resources for all — including for future generations — using the best available science.

During previous Republican Administrations, we worked closely with President Nixon and Bill Ruckelshaus to create the EPA and we worked closely with Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, Maine Senator Ed Muskie, and Michigan Congressman John Dingell to develop and pass the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

We worked with President Reagan to confront the threats to the ozone layer and coastal resources, President George H.W. Bush to address acid rain and cross-state air pollution. We worked with President George W. Bush to better protect millions of acres of wetlands. A commitment to sound science was the foundation of each of these accomplishments. 

“In contrast, Mr. Pruitt’s record and policy positions represent a stark break with the Republican Party’s conservation legacy. He has sought to undermine climate science and questioned whether mercury pollution was bad for public health. He has repeatedly used the power of his office to fight to overturn the water and air safeguards that protect our fish and wildlife, public health, natural resources, and climate. He sued to stop the EPA from reducing water pollution entering upstream tributaries and wetlands. He sued to stop rules to reduce toxic mercury pollution, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide, and sued to block the Clean Power Plan.

During yesterday’s hearing, Mr. Pruitt did not say anything to suggest he would change course from this record to represent all Americans, rather than special interests. Because of this track record and the positions he stated in yesterday’s hearing, his nomination is completely unprecedented in the agency’s nearly 50 year history and must be rejected.”

“It is clear Mr. Pruitt does not share America’s cherished bipartisan conservation values and cannot effectively lead the EPA. We agree with former Republican EPA Administrators, including Bill Ruckelshaus, Bill Reilly, and Christie Todd Whitman, who have made it clear that Mr. Pruitt cannot lead the EPA without a strong respect for science. For the first time in our 80-year history, the National Wildlife Federation asks Senators from both parties to join us in opposing this nomination by voting no.”

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General-NWF/2017/1-19-17-NWF-Calls-on-Senate-to-Reject-Nominee-for-EPA-Administrator.aspx (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General-NWF/2017/1-19-17-NWF-Calls-on-Senate-to-Reject-Nominee-for-EPA-Administrator.aspx)
Title: Pink Pussy Hats
Post by: RE on January 21, 2017, 06:46:34 PM
The Symbol for the Women's March against Trumpty Dumpty was/is a Pink Knit or Crocheted Toque with Pussy Cat Ears.  Pink chosen as the traditional "female" color, as opposed to Blue for males.  The Pussy Ears being a joke reference to the Donald's penchant for grabbing female genitals.

According to this story, most of these hats were made by the women themselves crocheting them or knitting them, but I don't buy it.  Few people crochet and knit these days, and I find it hard to believe all those people made their own toques.  If you look at them across the crowd, they are too identical to have been made individually.  Most of them were definitely manufactured.

Still, it's a good symbol and works well in videos, since the hats are very apparent from any shots taken from above.

I wonder if Pink Pussy Hats will appear in Walmart and if they will be a Fashion Trend during the Trumpty-Dumpty aministration? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510997192/with-pussyhats-liberals-get-their-own-version-of-the-red-trucker-hat (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510997192/with-pussyhats-liberals-get-their-own-version-of-the-red-trucker-hat)

Politics
With 'Pussyhats,' Liberals Get Their Own Version Of The Red Trucker Hat

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/21/march-1-of-1-1-_custom-d628d5d6db7212f816aea2238eeb198184729002-s800-c85.jpg)

January 21, 20177:23 PM ET
Danielle Kurtzleben - square 2015

Danielle Kurtzleben
Twitter

Nia (center) and Lonia Brown traveled from California to join the Women's March on Washington.
Meg Kelly/NPR

Donald Trump took the oath of office on Friday before a crowd speckled with red, many of them wearing the campaign's famous "Make America Great Again" hats.

Saturday's Women's March on Washington in downtown D.C. drew a crowd with vastly different political beliefs, but there was one similarity, as the sea of people was peppered with pink, cat-eared "pussyhats." The (mostly) homemade hats were a sly reference to lewd comments Trump made in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape leaked a month before the election. And they also echoed some of the traits that experts said made the Trump hat so effective for the winning candidate.
Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Worldwide
The Two-Way
Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Worldwide

Marchers on Saturday said they liked the hat because it unified them around one general message.

"I think this woman who put this together is frickin' brilliant and a genius because it's such a political, simple statement: a pink hat, and all you have is the pussycat ears," said Mellicent Dyane, 50, a casting director from New York City, wearing a neon pink hat as she watched the rally. "It speaks volumes."

Ayla, 6, Jeff and Kaari Lynch gather on Boston Common during the Boston Women's March for America on Saturday.
Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

In that sense, the pussyhat has some of the same traits that made the "Make America Great Again" hat work: it sends a very particular political message, one that is simultaneously unifying and antagonistic.

The Trump "Make America Great Again" implies that somehow, someone (perhaps the political establishment, especially from the party in power for the last eight years) allowed America to no longer be great, and that the wearers are banding together to get that greatness back.

Despite not bearing a slogan, the "pussyhats" have their own clear target of criticism, explains one expert.

"It doesn't have the words on the hat like the 'Make America Great Hat' does, but the name of the hat evokes memories of this [Access Hollywood] tape that has a message that the people who made this want to convey," said Todd Davies, associate director of Stanford's Symbolic Systems program.

A protester holds a Donald Trump bobble-head donned with a tiny pink "pussy hat" during Saturday's march in D.C.
Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

But the hats were intended also to be unifying for women (and the men who came to support the march). Following an election where Donald Trump effectively used masculinity as a campaign strategy, the pussyhats are unabashedly feminine, in that they are pink and homemade (not to mention that they reference a derogatory term for the female anatomy). That's by design: the "Pussyhat Project" website explains that "knitting and crochet are traditionally women's crafts," adding, "[knitting] circles are powerful gatherings of women."

The similarities don't end there. Both hats represent a kind of backlash: one by a group of people who believed they were ignored political outsiders, and the other by people who recently suffered a stinging election defeat.

Maryland Avenue was awash with pink between the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and the U.S. Department of Education at the Women's March on Washington.
Meg Kelly/NPR

In addition, simplicity is arguably a central goal of both hats, albeit to different ends. The Trump hat's plain red background with white Times New Roman lettering "represented [an] everyman sensibility," as FastCo Design's Dianna Budds explained this year. Likewise, most pussyhat patterns are simple — one article promised viewers they could learn how to sew a hat "in the time it actually takes to ironically watch The Bachelor" — allowing some crafters to crank out and distribute many.

While the red caps and pink knit hats invite comparison, they aren't perfect analogues of each other; the homemade pussyhats, in shades ranging from fuchsia to powder pink to mauve (and a few that weren't pink at all) — were naturally not as uniform as the mass-produced Trump hats.
Women's Marches Go Global: Postcards From Protests Around The World
The Two-Way
Women's Marches Go Global: Postcards From Protests Around The World

Again, the Pussyhat Project characterizes that as a feature rather than a bug, allowing people to be unique and diverse in their designs. (Likewise, the homemade hats helped people connect with one another — marchers on Saturday reported getting hats from their grandmothers, wives, state legislators, and even strangers on the street.)

Importantly, though, the pussyhat has a long way to go to reach the power that the Trump hat has. Extolling the red trucker hat as the "symbol of the year 2016," Davies wrote about what made it stick.

(Left to right) Melissa Breen, Laura Jamison, Sandy Cuza and Kathryn Wehrmann chat while sporting matching pink hats in support of the march.
Becky Harlan/NPR

"Lots of things can be symbols," he said. "but relatively few things actually are. Being a symbol is an acquired status that gets established through use."

The pussyhats could simply become a memento for marchers, as opposed to something they continually wear. After all, Trump rallies gave supporters regular reasons to get together and don their hats, eventually making the caps familiar to many Americans. The pink hats very easily might never reach that point.

At least for now, the pussyhats and trucker hats fulfill the basic role of identifying tribes. Saturday afternoon, red-hatted families ate in restaurants alongside pink-hatted marchers. Without even talking, they knew exactly which team they were on.
Title: Watchdog Complaint: Trump Is Now In Breach Of His D.C. Hotel Lease
Post by: RE on January 22, 2017, 07:28:25 AM
Looks like they are laying groundwork for an impeachment.

RE

 POLITICS
Watchdog Complaint: Trump Is Now In Breach Of His D.C. Hotel Lease
He’s the president, and the lease says no elected official may benefit.
01/20/2017 04:18 pm ET | Updated 1 day ago

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2o4teXXEAEd9_R.jpg)

Paul Blumenthal Money in Politics Reporter, The Huffington Post
X

WASHINGTON ― The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the General Services Administration on Friday, arguing that President Donald Trump is in violation of his lease to operate the Trump International Hotel on government property.

Trump’s agreement with the GSA to run a luxury hotel within Washington’s Old Post Office building, which is owned by the federal government, specifically states that the lease cannot be held by an elected official. After Trump announced his plans to only marginally separate himself from his multibillion-dollar business empire on Jan. 11, the GSA issued a statement indicating that it hadn’t been unaware of those plans and declaring that it would not comment until Trump was sworn in as president.

Now that he is a sitting elected official, CREW contends that the GSA needs to immediately begin the process of informing Old Post Office LLC, the Trump company that holds the lease, that it’s in breach of that agreement. This could lead to termination of the lease and the Trump Organization’s removal from the Old Post Office building.

“The potential conflicts of interest with regard to President Trump’s company’s lease of the Old Post Office Building are serious and real,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in the letter to the GSA. “President Trump now both owns the lessee, Old Post Office LLC, and controls the lessor, GSA, whose administrator is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the president.”

Trump’s company was selected to open a hotel in the Old Post Office building through an open bidding process in 2013. The lease states very clearly, “No member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the Government of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.”

When Trump announced his plan to remain a beneficiary of his business earlier this month, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said he was “very concerned.”

“We’ll see what happens, I guess, see next Monday after he’s sworn in. I expect that there will be a decision on [Jan. 20],” Cummings added.

The Washington hotel has been a hot spot for Trump supporters during inauguration week. The New York Times reported that it was bustling with activity as guests, including Trump’s Indonesian business partner Hary Tanoesoedibjo, were seen schmoozing in the lobby.

After Trump won the election, the hotel’s manager held meetings with foreign dignitaries to sell them on staying at the hotel as a way to ingratiate themselves with the new regime.

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor’?” one diplomat commented to The Washington Post.

Foreign governments paying for rooms in Trump’s hotel raised the possibility that the new president would find himself in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bans government officials from receiving payments or gifts from foreign governments and foreign government-owned corporations. Ethics experts and constitutional lawyers argue that payments by foreign governments to the hotel would directly benefit Trump and violate the Constitution.

Trump’s tax lawyer addressed this issue on Jan. 11 by, first, disagreeing that payments to the hotel would violate the Constitution and, second, announcing that any profits the hotel receives from foreign governments would be directed to the U.S. Treasury. But that solution actually did little to solve the problem of the receipt of emoluments and raised the additional worry that Trump was directly entangling his profitable personal brand with the U.S. government.

The Trump hotel does not seem worried right now. Staffers gathered Friday on the hotel steps to wave to Trump along his inaugural parade route.

How will Trump’s first 100 days impact you? Sign up for our weekly newsletter to find out.
Title: Alternative Facts
Post by: RE on January 22, 2017, 10:27:28 AM
The Newzspeak gets better every day!  Now in addition to "Fake Newz" we have "Alternative Facts"!  ::)

What is Fake Newz and what is Alternative Fact? ???  :icon_scratch:  Can I make up my own alternative facts also?  ???  :icon_scratch:  What IS a "fact"?  ???  :icon_scratch:  Are there any facts in politics?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/kellyanne-conway-says-donald-trumps-team-has-alternate-facts-which-pretty-much-says-it-all/?utm_term=.2b5a43ed8926 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/kellyanne-conway-says-donald-trumps-team-has-alternate-facts-which-pretty-much-says-it-all/?utm_term=.2b5a43ed8926)

Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team has ‘alternative facts.’ Which pretty much says it all.
By Aaron Blake January 22 at 11:38 AM

 

If there is one video clip that describes the new reality for the political media — and for the truth — during the President Trump era, it is the one above.

It's a discussion about White House press secretary Sean Spicer, on his first full day in that job, having taken to the podium and made easily disproved claims about the size of Trump's inauguration crowd.

“Why put him out there for the very first time, in front of that podium, to utter a provable falsehood?” Chuck Todd asked Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “It's a small thing, but the first time he confronts the public, it's a falsehood?”

After some tense back and forth, Conway offered this:

    Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that. But the point really is —

At this point, a visibly exasperated Todd cut in. “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they're falsehoods.”

“Fake news” is so yesterday. “Alternative facts” is where it's at now.

This, of course, isn't the first time the Trump team and its supporters have responded to journalists calling out their falsehoods by claiming the truth isn't so black and white or that it's not a big deal.

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski offered this after the election, comparing Trump with a guy at the bar and saying, “You’re going to say things, and sometimes you don’t have all the facts to back it up.”

That same week, pro-Trump CNN pundit Scottie Nell Hughes offered this on Diane Rehm's show:

    One thing that's been interesting this campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts — they're not really facts. Everybody has a way — it's kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There's no such thing, unfortunately anymore, of facts.

Hughes is not an official spokesman for the Trump team, but that last comment is basically what Conway is arguing today — that there are so many shades of gray that clear facts just don't really exist.

This, of course, is a hugely cynical worldview. But it's about the only way the Trump team can fight back, given how questionable the new president's purported facts have been throughout his time as a politician. Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not.

A memo is circulating on social media right now that claims to be from someone who worked in a past White House and tries to explain what the Trump team is doing.

It's not clear where this memo came from, but no matter the provenance, it makes some good points. Trump himself has been using his own brand of the truth, which is often false, for months. And there was really no way that his administration wasn't going to have to deal with that same tendency during his presidency.

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.

On Saturday in Spicer's statement and now Sunday in Conway's interview, the two are attempting to set a precedent that says they don't recognize the concept of facts as the media has come to define them; they have their own “alternative facts” and they'll rely on those.

And as brazen as it is, it's likely to appeal to that one-third of Americans the memo describes as being Trump's base. Polls have regularly shown a large portion of Republicans are more apt to believe Trump's claims even if they are pretty patently false, as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell wrote last month. It's a symptom of media distrust.

The New York Times's Glenn Thrush tweeted this Saturday after Spicer's statement:

Both “fake news” and the concept of “alternative facts” are now cudgels in the effort to obfuscate when reporters point out that Trump and his team have their facts wrong. Welcome to our new political reality — or rather, realities.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on January 22, 2017, 10:38:17 AM
Apparently there were not as many people in attendance because they had cordoned off some areas where new grass was planted ::)

Complete bullshit.

Meanwhile the various Dumpty protest movements had record attendance. 

"Fake News," "Alternate facts," 1984 much? 

My wife tells me that facepalm is full of 1984 quotes now.  It amazes me how slow the zeitgeist moves where facts are concerned. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-draws-far-smaller-inaugural-crowd-than-obama/2017/01/20/b751fb80-df4e-11e6-8902-610fe486791c_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-draws-far-smaller-inaugural-crowd-than-obama/2017/01/20/b751fb80-df4e-11e6-8902-610fe486791c_story.html)

Quote
WASHINGTON — Far fewer people attended President Donald Trump’s inauguration Friday than his predecessor’s swearing-in eight years ago.

Photos of the National Mall from President Barack Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 show a teeming crowd stretching from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol all the way to the Washington Monument. Photos taken from the same position on Friday show large swaths of empty space on the Mall.

Thin crowds and semi-empty bleachers also dotted the inaugural parade route. Hotels across the District of Columbia reported vacancies, a rarity for an event as large as a presidential inauguration. And ridership on the Washington’s Metro system didn’t match that of recent inaugurations.

As of 11 a.m., there were 193,000 trips taken, according to the transit service’s Twitter account. At the same hour eight years ago, there had been 513,000 trips. Four years later, there were 317,000 for Obama’s second inauguration.

There were 197,000 at 11 a.m. in 2005 for President George W. Bush’s second inauguration. The Metro system also posted that only two parking lots at stations were more than 60 percent full.

The smaller crowds may prove humbling for Trump, who frequently boasted during the campaign about the attendance at his rallies and would claim, often inaccurately, that thousands more people were waiting outside and unable to get into the event.

Some Trump supporters were slowed entering the Mall due to delays at security checkpoints caused by protesters. Thousands of people at Obama’s inaugurations were also delayed due to logistical hold-ups at the security checkpoints.

An official crowd count of Trump’s inauguration may not ever be known.

For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall. That changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington.

But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, one of the march organizers, threatened to sue the park service, arguing its count was motivated by “racism, white supremacy and hatred for Louis Farrakhan.”

No lawsuit was filed, but the dispute was enough to get the park service out of the head-counting busines
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 22, 2017, 11:17:24 AM
Anything at All Can Happen in the Age of Trump (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif)
 

Jon Schwarz

2017-01-21T14:26:59+00:00

SNIPPET:

But while nothing is certain, some alarming things are more likely than others. The path the new administration hopes to take may be discernible in a 2016 report by the conservative Heritage Foundation. According to The Hill on Thursday, Trump transition staffers – including a vice president at Heritage’s grassroots arm Action for America – are using the Heritage document as the basis for Trump’s first proposed budget.

The Trump transition staff did not respond to questions about whether they are in fact doing this, and understandably so — the Heritage plan treats social spending like Lizzie Borden treated her parents, axing $10.5 trillion, or 20 percent, from the $51.4 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government would otherwise spend over the next ten years.

“Unprecedented” is simultaneously accurate and insufficient to describe the Heritage cuts. As Joel Friedman, vice president for federal fiscal policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, puts it: “No administration up to this point has ever bought into proposals this far-reaching. Even the George W. Bush administration was never proposing cuts of anywhere near this magnitude.”

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210117202856.png)

As seen above, $6.8 trillion in cuts – or 65 percent of the total — would be extracted from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other non-discretionary spending, including all of the Affordable Care Act.

In addition to sharply reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits for most people, the Heritage plan would raise the programs’ eligibility ages and then index them to longevity – thereby enshrining in law the concept that no matter how wealthy the U.S. becomes, regular people will never be permitted to work fewer years at the end of their lives.

Heritage does not provide details about how exactly Medicaid and other mandatory spending would be whacked, but the cuts would be even heavier. While most Americans don’t know this until they need it, 65 percent of the elderly in nursing homes depend on Medicaid to pay their bills, and the program covers 45 percent of the country’s spending on nursing home care overall. Non-Medicaid mandatory spending includes income security for veterans, food stamps, and unemployment benefits.

Non-defense discretionary spending would also be eviscerated. Heritage would slice expenditures on clean energy, environmental programs, and veterans’ health, as well as funding for the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Justice, and State. The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be totally eliminated.

While all this is happening, one part of the government would see its budget protected and even increased: the Pentagon.

But wait, there’s more: The Heritage plan gets more draconian as time goes by, so these numbers actually understate the size of spending cuts in the long term. The graph below shows by percentage how much each area of government would be reduced in Heritage’s 2026 budget in comparison to the CBO’s current projection for 2026. For instance, spending on non-defense discretionary spending would be cut almost in half.

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210117203328.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)

full article:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/21/anything-at-all-can-happen-in-the-age-of-trump/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/21/anything-at-all-can-happen-in-the-age-of-trump/)

Agelbert NOTE: The author of the above article seems to think that Trump is different from Pence in that Pseudo-Christian Pence certainly would carry out all the murderous budget cuts, while Trump might not.

I believe that is wishful thinking. Trump, if anything, will attempt even more draconian empathy deficit disordered budget cuts in order to further enrich his plutocratic pals at the expense of we-the-people. Mark my words. Trump is pure poison for we-the-people.

The sad fact is that the US Government is now fully fascist and will proceed to ignore every clean air, soil and water regulation on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and other polluters from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

Also, the entire social contract that has been laboriously built up by people of good will since the time of FDR up to and including civil rights gains for people of color and healthcare for all Americans during the LBJ Administration will be deliberately and methodically destroyed piece by piece.

Every step in the dismembering of the social contract that will cause the unnecessary misery and the death of millions of Americans will be given an Orwellian label. For example, the Ryan plan to DEFUND the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) is cynically called a "rescue", when in fact it is a death sentence. This nihilistic cynicism is part and parcel of the fascist regressive modus operandi now only slightly less prevalent in the Democratic Party wing of the duopoly as in the Republican in-your-face fascist wing.

More wealth transfer from the poor and middle class of all colors to the rich is what the Trump Administration is all about, as well as more pollution, more sickness, and more rampant racist brutality.

The defunding of the ACA immediately hands out an average of 7 million dollars in tax cuts (EACH!) to the 400 most wealthy families in America. The only reason the ACA was bad mouthed and demonized as "Obamacare" for the past seven years by the internet noise machine and the bought and paid for news media is because all those families that make over $250,000 a year did not like funding this program, even though it was a poor substitute for what every other industrialized country in the west has for their own citizens.

For those who labor under the belief that Trump isn't as "radical" as Pence in wanting to destroy the safety net of we-the-people, all you have to do is study Trump's choice for OMB (i.e. BUDGETS!).
 
Donald’s Budget Chief Nominee GOP Congressman Mick Mulvaney—He’s a Political/Economic “House of Cards” 

Mulvaney pressed for slashing federal spending more deeply than House GOP leaders wanted. During the Obama administration, Mulvaney took a super-hard line on spending. In 2011, he vowed not to raise the nation’s debt limit. Not raising the debt limit to pay debts already owed would have caused domestic and international economic collapse. Mulvaney could have cared less. He labeled himself part of the “Shutdown Caucus” because he was willing to shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling. 

Mulvaney was one of several dozen House GOPers who refused to back the final deal to raise the statutory debt limit (NY Times, Shear, 12/16/16).  Mulvaney voted against passing the 2013 fiscal cliff agreement. Failure to enact this deal would have increased taxes on the middle class and denied unemployment benefits to millions (Wash. Post U.S. Cong. Votes Database).

Mulvaney objected because there were not enough spending cuts, and taxes were allowed to rise on families making over $450,000 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif) (NY Times, Weisman, 1/03/13, McClatchy Newspapers, J. Rosen, 1/12/13).

Mulvaney, who comes from a state often hit by hurricanes, voted against aid for Northeastern Hurricane Sandy victims because this relief didn’t include “corresponding budget cuts.” This condition  had never been attached to prior disaster relief bills (See “Politico,” Everett & Sherman, 1/10/13, “Politico,” Rogers, 1/15/13).

At the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mulvaney would guide Trump in repealing Obamacare. He would help Trump overhaul taxes and work on an infrastructure plan, which in Trump’s hands, appears to be more of a giveaway to his 1% rich friends than a middle class stimulus.

Mulvaney would also manage the White House’s annual proposed budget program and policies. He would be in charge of government purchases of goods and services, and oversee the review of government agencies and federal employees (NYTimes, Shear, 12/16/16, CNN, Diaz & Acosta, 12/17/16).

In introducing Mulvaney as his OMB pick, Trump stated, “We are going to do great things for the American people with Mick Mulvaney leading the Office of Management and Budget.” Trump called Mulvaney a “high- energy leader with deep convictions for how to responsibly manage our nation’s finances and save our country from drowning in red ink  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) (CNN, Diaz & Acosta, 12/17/16).” Translation: Trump and Mulvaney will cut middle class programs to the bone, but help the super-rich.

Mulvaney at OMB will also cut science research. In a now deleted (though cached) Facebook page, Mulvaney wrote, “Do we really need government-funded research at all (Levy, “Mother Jones”)?  Mulvaney recently spoke to the original tinfoil hat John Birch Society. He argued against all scientific knowledge that the Zika virus does not cause birth defects (Kos, Sumner, 12/19/16).  Hey, why fund science at all?

He endorsed Donald a few hours after House Speaker Paul Ryan jumped on the Trump bandwagon in 6/2016. At a candidate’s forum in Gaffney, S. Carolina, Mulvaney stated that Trump could “advance the Republican agenda.”  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)

Mulvaney talked of Trump having “possible common ground with him on entitlements,” read, cutting Social Security and Medicare (CNN, Diaz & Acosta). Scam artist Trump and his political/economic “House of Cards” OMB nominee Mulvaney are nothing more than selfish radical budget cutters. Again, the only people getting more money in a Trump administration will be the super-rich.

Plutocratic greed is destroying America. This will end VERY badly.

Quote
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." — Dwight D. Eisenhower
Title: Re: Pink Pussy Hats
Post by: Eddie on January 22, 2017, 11:52:24 AM
The Symbol for the Women's March against Trumpty Dumpty was/is a Pink Knit or Crocheted Toque with Pussy Cat Ears.  Pink chosen as the traditional "female" color, as opposed to Blue for males.  The Pussy Ears being a joke reference to the Donald's penchant for grabbing female genitals.

According to this story, most of these hats were made by the women themselves crocheting them or knitting them, but I don't buy it.  Few people crochet and knit these days, and I find it hard to believe all those people made their own toques.  If you look at them across the crowd, they are too identical to have been made individually.  Most of them were definitely manufactured.

Still, it's a good symbol and works well in videos, since the hats are very apparent from any shots taken from above.

I wonder if Pink Pussy Hats will appear in Walmart and if they will be a Fashion Trend during the Trumpty-Dumpty aministration? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510997192/with-pussyhats-liberals-get-their-own-version-of-the-red-trucker-hat (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510997192/with-pussyhats-liberals-get-their-own-version-of-the-red-trucker-hat)

Politics
With 'Pussyhats,' Liberals Get Their Own Version Of The Red Trucker Hat

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/21/march-1-of-1-1-_custom-d628d5d6db7212f816aea2238eeb198184729002-s800-c85.jpg)

January 21, 20177:23 PM ET
Danielle Kurtzleben - square 2015

Danielle Kurtzleben
Twitter

Nia (center) and Lonia Brown traveled from California to join the Women's March on Washington.
Meg Kelly/NPR

Donald Trump took the oath of office on Friday before a crowd speckled with red, many of them wearing the campaign's famous "Make America Great Again" hats.

Saturday's Women's March on Washington in downtown D.C. drew a crowd with vastly different political beliefs, but there was one similarity, as the sea of people was peppered with pink, cat-eared "pussyhats." The (mostly) homemade hats were a sly reference to lewd comments Trump made in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape leaked a month before the election. And they also echoed some of the traits that experts said made the Trump hat so effective for the winning candidate.
Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Worldwide
The Two-Way
Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Worldwide

Marchers on Saturday said they liked the hat because it unified them around one general message.

"I think this woman who put this together is frickin' brilliant and a genius because it's such a political, simple statement: a pink hat, and all you have is the pussycat ears," said Mellicent Dyane, 50, a casting director from New York City, wearing a neon pink hat as she watched the rally. "It speaks volumes."

Ayla, 6, Jeff and Kaari Lynch gather on Boston Common during the Boston Women's March for America on Saturday.
Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

In that sense, the pussyhat has some of the same traits that made the "Make America Great Again" hat work: it sends a very particular political message, one that is simultaneously unifying and antagonistic.

The Trump "Make America Great Again" implies that somehow, someone (perhaps the political establishment, especially from the party in power for the last eight years) allowed America to no longer be great, and that the wearers are banding together to get that greatness back.

Despite not bearing a slogan, the "pussyhats" have their own clear target of criticism, explains one expert.

"It doesn't have the words on the hat like the 'Make America Great Hat' does, but the name of the hat evokes memories of this [Access Hollywood] tape that has a message that the people who made this want to convey," said Todd Davies, associate director of Stanford's Symbolic Systems program.

A protester holds a Donald Trump bobble-head donned with a tiny pink "pussy hat" during Saturday's march in D.C.
Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

But the hats were intended also to be unifying for women (and the men who came to support the march). Following an election where Donald Trump effectively used masculinity as a campaign strategy, the pussyhats are unabashedly feminine, in that they are pink and homemade (not to mention that they reference a derogatory term for the female anatomy). That's by design: the "Pussyhat Project" website explains that "knitting and crochet are traditionally women's crafts," adding, "[knitting] circles are powerful gatherings of women."

The similarities don't end there. Both hats represent a kind of backlash: one by a group of people who believed they were ignored political outsiders, and the other by people who recently suffered a stinging election defeat.

Maryland Avenue was awash with pink between the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and the U.S. Department of Education at the Women's March on Washington.
Meg Kelly/NPR

In addition, simplicity is arguably a central goal of both hats, albeit to different ends. The Trump hat's plain red background with white Times New Roman lettering "represented [an] everyman sensibility," as FastCo Design's Dianna Budds explained this year. Likewise, most pussyhat patterns are simple — one article promised viewers they could learn how to sew a hat "in the time it actually takes to ironically watch The Bachelor" — allowing some crafters to crank out and distribute many.

While the red caps and pink knit hats invite comparison, they aren't perfect analogues of each other; the homemade pussyhats, in shades ranging from fuchsia to powder pink to mauve (and a few that weren't pink at all) — were naturally not as uniform as the mass-produced Trump hats.
Women's Marches Go Global: Postcards From Protests Around The World
The Two-Way
Women's Marches Go Global: Postcards From Protests Around The World

Again, the Pussyhat Project characterizes that as a feature rather than a bug, allowing people to be unique and diverse in their designs. (Likewise, the homemade hats helped people connect with one another — marchers on Saturday reported getting hats from their grandmothers, wives, state legislators, and even strangers on the street.)

Importantly, though, the pussyhat has a long way to go to reach the power that the Trump hat has. Extolling the red trucker hat as the "symbol of the year 2016," Davies wrote about what made it stick.

(Left to right) Melissa Breen, Laura Jamison, Sandy Cuza and Kathryn Wehrmann chat while sporting matching pink hats in support of the march.
Becky Harlan/NPR

"Lots of things can be symbols," he said. "but relatively few things actually are. Being a symbol is an acquired status that gets established through use."

The pussyhats could simply become a memento for marchers, as opposed to something they continually wear. After all, Trump rallies gave supporters regular reasons to get together and don their hats, eventually making the caps familiar to many Americans. The pink hats very easily might never reach that point.

At least for now, the pussyhats and trucker hats fulfill the basic role of identifying tribes. Saturday afternoon, red-hatted families ate in restaurants alongside pink-hatted marchers. Without even talking, they knew exactly which team they were on.

A very mixed crowd of all ages and genders hit the streets here yesterday, forty thousand strong, marching (nominally) in favor of women's reproductive rights, but anti-Trump sentiment was strong, as you could see from hundreds of signs, many of which were quite creative in their appeal.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8TQXGX64FQ4/Vq6hyX7YFhI/AAAAAAAAAxY/7qxEdJwbegg/s400/come%2Band%2Btake%2Bit.jpg)


I was the designated driver, inserting a carload of demonstrators within a block of the Capitol building and then returning a few hours later to pick them up. It was a gorgeous January summer day in Austin, with full sun and temps in the  70's. The attitude in the crowd was festive yet defiant.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: jdwheeler42 on January 22, 2017, 01:21:40 PM
Where did the idea of Putin interfering with Clinton's election come from?

Turns out, a guilty conscience....

Quote
Imagine for a moment a country that unexpectedly has their national presidential elections tampered with, not through the balloting process but by media buys, leaked documents, last minute revelations of corruption and millions of foreign dollars flowing in to boost the lagging candidate who gets a last minute, 10 percent surge over polling predictions. Imagine further that the new president is immediately surrounded by advisors from the same foreign power who trash universal medical coverage, abandon free education, and slash away the social welfare net while feathering the nests of a new class of billionaire oligarchs made fat off privatization of the former treasures of the state. Millions of the unemployed, sick and elderly simply die. The national economy of the country is in tatters.

If you think we are describing Trumpageddon you would be mistaken. We are describing the 1996 election in Russia, when the party stalwart  Gennady Zyuganov  was defeated by the enormously unpopular drunken buffoon Boris Yeltsin by a margin of 13.7 points, riding on a wave of support openly engineered by George Soros and the Clinton White House.
http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2017/01/three-pillars.html (http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2017/01/three-pillars.html)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 22, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
Where did the idea of Putin interfering with Clinton's election come from?

Turns out, a guilty conscience....

Quote
Imagine for a moment a country that unexpectedly has their national presidential elections tampered with, not through the balloting process but by media buys, leaked documents, last minute revelations of corruption and millions of foreign dollars flowing in to boost the lagging candidate who gets a last minute, 10 percent surge over polling predictions. Imagine further that the new president is immediately surrounded by advisors from the same foreign power who trash universal medical coverage, abandon free education, and slash away the social welfare net while feathering the nests of a new class of billionaire oligarchs made fat off privatization of the former treasures of the state. Millions of the unemployed, sick and elderly simply die. The national economy of the country is in tatters.

If you think we are describing Trumpageddon you would be mistaken. We are describing the 1996 election in Russia, when the party stalwart  Gennady Zyuganov  was defeated by the enormously unpopular drunken buffoon Boris Yeltsin by a margin of 13.7 points, riding on a wave of support openly engineered by George Soros and the Clinton White House.
http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2017/01/three-pillars.html (http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/2017/01/three-pillars.html)

Conscience no.  It is merely a case of we did it to them so they will do it to us or our paranoia will make us think they might and twisted into an excuse they could use.  It crossed their minds.  Conscience involves a notion of right and wrong and not paranoia only.

Which will annoy ya.
Title: White House: Trump has left his businesses (NOT!)
Post by: RE on January 23, 2017, 04:40:59 PM
First of all, the requisite papers have not been filed.

Second, how is handing off the Trump Empire to your two sons resigning?  He also could have a secret clause which makes the resignation valid only for so long as he is POTUS, then the control reverts back to him.  He's also going to be collecting on revenue from Trump Corps, through stock holdings in his companies.  Any legislation he pushes through which makes those stocks more valuable goes in his pocket.

Trumpty-Dumpty is once again passing out his own "Alternative Facts".  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315699-white-house-trump-has-left-his-businesses (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315699-white-house-trump-has-left-his-businesses)

White House: Trump has left his businesses
By Jordan Fabian - 01/23/17 02:51 PM EST

(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trump_donald_getty_5.jpg?itok=4lbDBMVq[img])[/img]
© Getty

The White House said Monday that President Trump has left his business empire, but the documentation has not been made public.

"He has resigned from the company, as he said he would, before he took office," press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at his first official press briefing.

“Don and Eric are fully in charge of the company," he added, referring to the president's two adult sons.

ADVERTISEMENT
Spokeswoman Hope Hicks said the required separations documents are "not public at this time.”

ProPublica reported Friday that at that time, there was no record Trump had removed himself from his business empire.

To make the separation official, Trump is required to file paperwork in Florida, Delaware and New York. Officials in those states told the outlet those documents had not been received.

CNN said Monday the Trump Organization had provided the outlet a copy of a 19-page letter that reads: "I, Donald J. Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold" and then lists more than 400 entities.

The letter was signed by Trump and dated Jan. 19, one day before his inauguration.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 23, 2017, 08:14:17 PM
First of all, the requisite papers have not been filed.

Second, how is handing off the Trump Empire to your two sons resigning?  He also could have a secret clause which makes the resignation valid only for so long as he is POTUS, then the control reverts back to him.  He's also going to be collecting on revenue from Trump Corps, through stock holdings in his companies.  Any legislation he pushes through which makes those stocks more valuable goes in his pocket.

Trumpty-Dumpty is once again passing out his own "Alternative Facts".  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315699-white-house-trump-has-left-his-businesses (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315699-white-house-trump-has-left-his-businesses)

White House: Trump has left his businesses
By Jordan Fabian - 01/23/17 02:51 PM EST

(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trump_donald_getty_5.jpg?itok=4lbDBMVq[img])[/img]
© Getty

The White House said Monday that President Trump has left his business empire, but the documentation has not been made public.

"He has resigned from the company, as he said he would, before he took office," press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at his first official press briefing.

“Don and Eric are fully in charge of the company," he added, referring to the president's two adult sons.

ADVERTISEMENT
Spokeswoman Hope Hicks said the required separations documents are "not public at this time.”

ProPublica reported Friday that at that time, there was no record Trump had removed himself from his business empire.

To make the separation official, Trump is required to file paperwork in Florida, Delaware and New York. Officials in those states told the outlet those documents had not been received.

CNN said Monday the Trump Organization had provided the outlet a copy of a 19-page letter that reads: "I, Donald J. Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold" and then lists more than 400 entities.

The letter was signed by Trump and dated Jan. 19, one day before his inauguration.
He left one out...  ;D

"I, Donald J. Trump, hereby resign from the office of President of the United States in order to spend more time with my family businesses".


(http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png)
Title: Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win
Post by: RE on January 24, 2017, 01:11:08 AM
Can't say I am sad to see TPP get shit-canned, but killing trade with tariffs and so forth is just going to accelerate the collapse.

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/24/trump-kills-tpp-giving-china-its-first-big-win/?utm_term=.b9c9f1cee1d9 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/24/trump-kills-tpp-giving-china-its-first-big-win/?utm_term=.b9c9f1cee1d9)

WorldViewsanalysis
Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win
By Ishaan Tharoor January 24 at 1:00 AM

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2017/01/0124_TrumpChina_F.jpg&w=1484)

Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today's WorldView newsletter.

President Trump signed an executive order on Monday ending the United States' participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping trade pact negotiated with eleven other nations. It was neither ratified by American lawmakers nor expected to pass a vote in Congress. But Trump chose to kill it anyway with an executive action, underscoring how different he is from his Republican predecessors — and some of the party's current leaders — who embraced free trade and preached the dogma of open markets.

He also handed China its clearest opening yet to tilt the geopolitical balance in Asia in its favor.

Today's WorldView

What's most important from where the world meets Washington

Trump's opposition to the TPP is one of his few consistent political positions. Throughout the campaign, he issued loud calls in defense of American workers and against the perils of globalization. The pact became politically toxic for both parties last year, with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton turning against the TPP (she had initially supported it) and her leftist challenger Bernie Sanders joining Trump in framing the TPP as the project of secretive elites ready to stiff the American common man.
President Trump signs order to withdraw from Trans-Pacific Partnership
Embed Share
Play Video1:31
On his fourth day in office, President Trump signed an executive order formally withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Crafted by the Obama administration, the trade deal failed to be ratified by Congress during Obama's two terms. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Trump spent Monday morning with executives of leading American manufacturing companies, discussing plans to give incentives to American corporations to stay at home and tax those that build factories elsewhere and then ship goods back. Whatever comes of these discussions, Trump seems to be sticking to his protectionist promises. Critics, though, argue that the economic and technological realities of our age mean that the bulk of lost American jobs, particularly in manufacturing, are never going to return.

"Economists have warned that many of Trump’s proposals — including suggestions that he would impose blanket double-digit tariffs on goods from Mexico and China — could backfire on the American economy by causing prices to rise or igniting a trade war," wrote The Post's Ylan Q. Mui. "And business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had lobbied extensively for passage of the TPP, touting the deal as an engine of job growth and an important check on China’s growing ambitions."

Ships sit under construction in a ship-building yard in Dalian, China, on Tuesday, Jan. 17. (Qilai Shen/Bloomberg)

Those supporting the TPP backed the pact for political reasons as well as economic ones. It emerged as the cornerstone of former President Barack Obama's strategy to reassert American influence in Asia and balance against a rising China. The pact reduced tariffs, but also involved provisions that would compel countries to comply with tough international standards on labor and intellectual property rights. Longstanding U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific, including Japan and Australia, were particularly enthusiastic supporters of the agreement.
CONTENT FROM BANK OF AMERICA
The return on responsibility
Businesses are increasingly making responsible growth part of their core strategy. Here’s why.

"We can't let countries like China write the rules of the global economy," Obama said last year. "We should write those rules."
Remaining countries scramble to save the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Embed Share
Play Video1:19
With the Trans-Pacific Partnership in disarray after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, the 11 remaining members are left to pick up the pieces. Australia's prime minister is open to the "potential" of including China in the partnership, but it's unclear if other nations or China itself would oblige. (Reuters)

A retreat from the TPP now gives Beijing, which has been negotiating its own trade blocs, a chance to fill a void. Since Trump's election, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia have shifted toward China's proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would also reduce tariffs — without many of the standards put in place by Obama's plan — and redirect Asian trade China's way. Other nations in the region are likely to follow suit.

"We don't have the choice America has. It's big enough that they can make a living selling things to themselves," said New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on Monday. "We have to trade."

A host of foreign policy luminaries in Washington, including this former U.S. ambassador below, panned Trump's decision to gift China the upper hand:

"Trump has single-handedly given away an enormous source of leverage over China," Edward Alden, of the Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN. "The first rule of negotiating is don't give away something for nothing, and he's done that right off the bat." His boss, Richard Haass, echoed the sentiment:

But Trump doesn't care about the establishment's outrage. He doesn't care about the United States' historic role as a guarantor of stability and prosperity for a large swath of Asia. And the White House looks happy to risk escalation with China in a number of strategic hotspots, including over disputed islands in the South China Sea.

The uncertainty posed by the new administration allowed Chinese President Xi Jinping to play the grown-up at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, where he gave a well-received address championing globalization and scolded those with protectionist delusions. The Chinese can now "pitch themselves as the driver of trade liberalization," Eric Altbach, a former U.S. trade official, told Bloomberg.

Trump's critics on the left say his populism is a sham aimed at securing plum deals for corporate allies while doing little to boost workers' rights at home.

Beijing's critics, meanwhile, argue that posturing as the guardian of the global order can't obscure China's own need for both political and economic reform. Instead, the world could drift into an era of confrontation and great power politics more familiar to the 19th century than the past few decades of American supremacy.

"Eventual Chinese leadership would not be akin to America assuming Britain’s former role after World War II," wrote Richard Fontaine, a former Bush administration official, in the Wall Street Journal. "Instead it would lead to a world likely less prosperous and certainly less free."
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 24, 2017, 08:12:40 AM
I wrote the Trumpster a letter about what he can do at Standing Rock to make everybody happy.  I'm serious so I am not re-publishing the letter here.  Not now anyway; and hopefully never.  If I do it will be because things have gone in the wrong direction. Then I will post it in the Standing Rock thread.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Mabd46923ea2d3072b7ec3aacb072fffaH0%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
Title: Re: Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win
Post by: jdwheeler42 on January 24, 2017, 09:27:59 AM
Can't say I am sad to see TPP get shit-canned, but killing trade with tariffs and so forth is just going to accelerate the collapse.
And the problem would be....?  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win
Post by: K-Dog on January 24, 2017, 12:41:52 PM
Can't say I am sad to see TPP get shit-canned, but killing trade with tariffs and so forth is just going to accelerate the collapse.
And the problem would be....?  :icon_scratch:

I wonder too.  Making it harder for cheap-assed Chinese junk that does not do anything good for our domestic economy harder to sell here should not hasten collapse.  It should slow it down.

Obama is a citizen of the global world who conned his way into the presidency pretending he gave two shits about the American people.  Then he showed his true colors which turned out to be white in the worst way.  Trump is different.  Stopping the TPP is in our national interest.  Trump starts out on the other side of the fence already being white in the worst way.  Trump has the opportunity however to become white in the best way if he can escape the echo chamber that surrounds him and rise above his class.

Sadly, I don't think he has it in him to muster the necessary courage to be special.  His actions today with his executive order concerning oil pipelines may be showing us that.  One flush may be all we get.
Title: Re: Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win
Post by: RE on January 24, 2017, 01:29:22 PM
Can't say I am sad to see TPP get shit-canned, but killing trade with tariffs and so forth is just going to accelerate the collapse.
And the problem would be....?  :icon_scratch:

I wonder too.  Making it harder for cheap-assed Chinese junk that does not do anything good for our domestic economy harder to sell here should not hasten collapse.  It should slow it down.

Dropping on tarriffs will collapse trade and the GDP of both coutries.  This will also collapse numerous banks involved in international trade.

Just cancelling TPP won't do this, but once onerous tarriffs are dropped on, it's a sure recipe for economic collapse.

RE
Title: Trump advances controversial oil pipelines with executive action
Post by: RE on January 24, 2017, 01:48:49 PM
Let the Pipelines Commence!

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-executive-actions/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-executive-actions/)

Trump advances controversial oil pipelines with executive action

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/01/23/webtag-site-promo.jpg)

By Athena Jones, Jeremy Diamond and Gregory Krieg, CNN

Updated 4:27 PM ET, Tue January 24, 2017
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions

dakota pipeline Tribe Announcement sot _00000000.jpg
Tribe chief on Dakota pipeline: 'We made it'
CANNON BALL, ND - NOVEMBER 30: Snow covers Oceti Sakowin Camp near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on November 30, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country have been gathering at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The proposed 1,172 mile long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Officials: Pipeline will be re-routed
exp Amy Goodman on standing rock_00011414.jpg
Amy Goodman describes covering Standing Rock
Pipeline protesters vow to remain
Pipeline protesters defy evacuation order
Protester: 'It will be a battle'
Police unleashed a water cannon on people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.
Protesters fighting pipeline are staying put
Meet Mni Wiconi, or Water is Life
Now Playing
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions
Tires burn as armed soldiers and law enforcement officers stand in formation on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016, to force Dakota Access pipeline protesters off private land where they had camped to block construction. The pipeline is to carry oil from western North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to an existing pipeline in Patoka, Ill. (Mike McCleary/The Bismarck Tribune via AP)
What's up with the Dakota Access Pipeline?
US Navy veteran John Gutekanst from Athens, Ohio, waves an American flag as an activist approaches the police barricade with his hands up on a bridge near Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country gather at the camp trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Police have their say about Standing Rock
Veterans stand in solidarity in Standing Rock
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 05: Military veterans are briefed on cold-weather safety issues and their overall role at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 5, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Over the weekend a large group of military veterans joined native Americans and activists from around the country who have been at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Yesterday the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not grant an easement for the pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation. The proposed 1,172-mile-long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Protesters stand strong despite blizzard
Dakota Access Pipeline fight isn't over
Victory for Native Americans in pipeline fight
A crowd celebrates at the Oceti Sakowin camp after it was announced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won&#39;t grant easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in Cannon Ball, N.D., Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Drumming, chanting over Dakota pipeline halt
dakota pipeline Tribe Announcement sot _00000000.jpg
Tribe chief on Dakota pipeline: 'We made it'
CANNON BALL, ND - NOVEMBER 30: Snow covers Oceti Sakowin Camp near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on November 30, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country have been gathering at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The proposed 1,172 mile long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Officials: Pipeline will be re-routed
exp Amy Goodman on standing rock_00011414.jpg
Amy Goodman describes covering Standing Rock
Pipeline protesters vow to remain
Pipeline protesters defy evacuation order
Protester: 'It will be a battle'
Police unleashed a water cannon on people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.
Protesters fighting pipeline are staying put
Meet Mni Wiconi, or Water is Life
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions
Tires burn as armed soldiers and law enforcement officers stand in formation on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016, to force Dakota Access pipeline protesters off private land where they had camped to block construction. The pipeline is to carry oil from western North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to an existing pipeline in Patoka, Ill. (Mike McCleary/The Bismarck Tribune via AP)
What's up with the Dakota Access Pipeline?
US Navy veteran John Gutekanst from Athens, Ohio, waves an American flag as an activist approaches the police barricade with his hands up on a bridge near Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country gather at the camp trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Police have their say about Standing Rock
Veterans stand in solidarity in Standing Rock
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 05: Military veterans are briefed on cold-weather safety issues and their overall role at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 5, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Over the weekend a large group of military veterans joined native Americans and activists from around the country who have been at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Yesterday the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not grant an easement for the pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation. The proposed 1,172-mile-long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Protesters stand strong despite blizzard
Dakota Access Pipeline fight isn't over
Victory for Native Americans in pipeline fight
A crowd celebrates at the Oceti Sakowin camp after it was announced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won&#39;t grant easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in Cannon Ball, N.D., Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Drumming, chanting over Dakota pipeline halt
Story highlights

    The decision to advance the pipelines would cast aside decisions by President Barack Obama's administration
    Trump during his campaign said he would streamline the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed executive actions to advance approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
The decision to advance the pipelines cast aside efforts by President Barack Obama's administration to block construction of the two pipelines, while making good on one of Trump's campaign promises.

As he signed the documents Tuesday in the Oval Office, Trump also vowed to "renegotiate some of the terms" of the Keystone bill and said he would then seek to "get that pipeline built."

Trump also issued executive actions declaring oil pipelines constructed in the US should be built with US materials, streamlining the regulatory process for pipeline construction and shortening the environmental review process.
Trump during his campaign said he would streamline the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which was stalled for years in the Obama administration until Obama denied approval for the pipeline's construction altogether in November 2015.
And Trump said for the first time in December that he supported construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which stalled last year amid protests opposing its construction on Native American lands. The Obama administration denied the company a permit it needed to complete the pipeline late last year.
CNN Politics app
Protesters of the pipeline projects quickly condemned the decisions Tuesday.
"President Trump is legally required to honor our treaty rights and provide a fair and reasonable pipeline process," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman Dave Archambault II in a statement. "Americans know this pipeline was unfairly rerouted towards our nation and without our consent. The existing pipeline route risks infringing on our treaty rights, contaminating our water and the water of 17 million Americans downstream."
Environmental groups and activists were also quick to slam the decision, with Tom Steyer, the president of NextGen Climate, accusing the Trump administration of putting "corporate interests ahead of American interests."
"The pipelines are all risk and no reward, allowing corporate polluters to transport oil through our country to be sold on the global market, while putting our air and water at serious risk," he said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota where the Dakota Access Pipeline is being built, welcomed the move, as did Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.
"What this country needs is more jobs, and that is why I have always been a proponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline and was an original cosponsor of legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project," Manchin, who has already supported several of Trump's nominees and initiatives, said in a statement. "With a majority of Americans in support of the Keystone XL pipeline's construction, I'm glad we are finally moving forward with this important project."
Just as Trump on Tuesday flicked to the need to "renegotiate" the Keystone XL pipeline terms, Trump during his campaign argued not just for quick approval of the pipeline, which would shuttle oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, but also said he would push for a deal that would grant US taxpayers a share of the profits. Trump said that the US would approve the pipeline while also seeking a "better deal."
Trump's approval of both pipelines are early signs of how his administration will take a drastically different approach to energy and environmental issues. Beyond approving the pipelines, Trump has also vowed to slash environmental protection regulations and has nominated several skeptics of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change to key Cabinet posts dealing with environmental issues.
New wave of protests expected
Environmental groups and their progressive allies have already begun to mobilize against Trump's directive.
The Indigenous Environmental Network, a leading tribal organization dedicated to blocking further construction of the Dakota Access project, promised a new round of "massive mobilization and civil disobedience."
The documents signed by Trump have not yet been made public or provided to the tribes or their legal advocates. But Phillip Ellis, a spokesman for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization that represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told CNN they were prepared to act.
"Whatever the decision from the President and whatever the mechanism, we will pursue on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe all legal outlets to oppose the permitting (of pipeline construction)," he said. "We just don't know what that is yet."
A lawyer with Earthjustice, Jan Hasselman, said it was his understanding that the memorandum signed by Trump "directs the Army to review and approve the easement quickly, 'to the extent permitted by law.'"
Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, needs an easement -- or legal permission -- from the Army Corps of Engineers to drill under Lake Oahe -- about a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock tribe reservation border -- to complete the project.
"The Army Corps of Engineers still needs to make a decision on the easement and if they issue it without the (Environmental Impact Statement) process we will amend our complaint to challenge it legally on behalf of the tribe," he said.
The headsman council at the Oceti Sakowin camp, home to a large protest site during demonstrations last year, issued a call on Tuesday for "allies and people to stand up where they are" and engage in "mass civil disobedience as a showing of solidarity for Standing Rock."
Desiree Kane, who spent seven months at the Oceti Sakowin Camp as a media volunteer, told CNN she ready to answer the call.
"I leave tomorrow morning," she said in an email.
Organizers from 350.org, the Sierra Club, CREDO, and other groups have already planned a rally outside the White House at 5 p.m. Tuesday to protest the decision.
"The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would be a disaster for the land and water, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and the climate," they said in a statement. "Both pipelines ignited widespread grassroots resistance worldwide, and Trump's executive orders are renewing mass opposition to the projects."
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 24, 2017, 02:35:23 PM
Let the Pipelines Commence!

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-executive-actions/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-executive-actions/)

Trump advances controversial oil pipelines with executive action

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/01/23/webtag-site-promo.jpg)

By Athena Jones, Jeremy Diamond and Gregory Krieg, CNN

Updated 4:27 PM ET, Tue January 24, 2017
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions

dakota pipeline Tribe Announcement sot _00000000.jpg
Tribe chief on Dakota pipeline: 'We made it'
CANNON BALL, ND - NOVEMBER 30: Snow covers Oceti Sakowin Camp near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on November 30, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country have been gathering at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The proposed 1,172 mile long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Officials: Pipeline will be re-routed
exp Amy Goodman on standing rock_00011414.jpg
Amy Goodman describes covering Standing Rock
Pipeline protesters vow to remain
Pipeline protesters defy evacuation order
Protester: 'It will be a battle'
Police unleashed a water cannon on people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.
Protesters fighting pipeline are staying put
Meet Mni Wiconi, or Water is Life
Now Playing
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions
Tires burn as armed soldiers and law enforcement officers stand in formation on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016, to force Dakota Access pipeline protesters off private land where they had camped to block construction. The pipeline is to carry oil from western North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to an existing pipeline in Patoka, Ill. (Mike McCleary/The Bismarck Tribune via AP)
What's up with the Dakota Access Pipeline?
US Navy veteran John Gutekanst from Athens, Ohio, waves an American flag as an activist approaches the police barricade with his hands up on a bridge near Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country gather at the camp trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Police have their say about Standing Rock
Veterans stand in solidarity in Standing Rock
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 05: Military veterans are briefed on cold-weather safety issues and their overall role at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 5, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Over the weekend a large group of military veterans joined native Americans and activists from around the country who have been at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Yesterday the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not grant an easement for the pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation. The proposed 1,172-mile-long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Protesters stand strong despite blizzard
Dakota Access Pipeline fight isn't over
Victory for Native Americans in pipeline fight
A crowd celebrates at the Oceti Sakowin camp after it was announced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won&#39;t grant easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in Cannon Ball, N.D., Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Drumming, chanting over Dakota pipeline halt
dakota pipeline Tribe Announcement sot _00000000.jpg
Tribe chief on Dakota pipeline: 'We made it'
CANNON BALL, ND - NOVEMBER 30: Snow covers Oceti Sakowin Camp near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on November 30, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country have been gathering at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The proposed 1,172 mile long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Officials: Pipeline will be re-routed
exp Amy Goodman on standing rock_00011414.jpg
Amy Goodman describes covering Standing Rock
Pipeline protesters vow to remain
Pipeline protesters defy evacuation order
Protester: 'It will be a battle'
Police unleashed a water cannon on people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.
Protesters fighting pipeline are staying put
Meet Mni Wiconi, or Water is Life
Trump signs oil pipeline executive actions
Tires burn as armed soldiers and law enforcement officers stand in formation on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016, to force Dakota Access pipeline protesters off private land where they had camped to block construction. The pipeline is to carry oil from western North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to an existing pipeline in Patoka, Ill. (Mike McCleary/The Bismarck Tribune via AP)
What's up with the Dakota Access Pipeline?
US Navy veteran John Gutekanst from Athens, Ohio, waves an American flag as an activist approaches the police barricade with his hands up on a bridge near Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Native Americans and activists from around the country gather at the camp trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Police have their say about Standing Rock
Veterans stand in solidarity in Standing Rock
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 05: Military veterans are briefed on cold-weather safety issues and their overall role at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 5, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Over the weekend a large group of military veterans joined native Americans and activists from around the country who have been at the camp for several months trying to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Yesterday the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not grant an easement for the pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation. The proposed 1,172-mile-long pipeline would transport oil from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Protesters stand strong despite blizzard
Dakota Access Pipeline fight isn't over
Victory for Native Americans in pipeline fight
A crowd celebrates at the Oceti Sakowin camp after it was announced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won&#39;t grant easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in Cannon Ball, N.D., Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Drumming, chanting over Dakota pipeline halt
Story highlights

    The decision to advance the pipelines would cast aside decisions by President Barack Obama's administration
    Trump during his campaign said he would streamline the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed executive actions to advance approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
The decision to advance the pipelines cast aside efforts by President Barack Obama's administration to block construction of the two pipelines, while making good on one of Trump's campaign promises.

As he signed the documents Tuesday in the Oval Office, Trump also vowed to "renegotiate some of the terms" of the Keystone bill and said he would then seek to "get that pipeline built."

Trump also issued executive actions declaring oil pipelines constructed in the US should be built with US materials, streamlining the regulatory process for pipeline construction and shortening the environmental review process.
Trump during his campaign said he would streamline the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which was stalled for years in the Obama administration until Obama denied approval for the pipeline's construction altogether in November 2015.
And Trump said for the first time in December that he supported construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which stalled last year amid protests opposing its construction on Native American lands. The Obama administration denied the company a permit it needed to complete the pipeline late last year.
CNN Politics app
Protesters of the pipeline projects quickly condemned the decisions Tuesday.
"President Trump is legally required to honor our treaty rights and provide a fair and reasonable pipeline process," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman Dave Archambault II in a statement. "Americans know this pipeline was unfairly rerouted towards our nation and without our consent. The existing pipeline route risks infringing on our treaty rights, contaminating our water and the water of 17 million Americans downstream."
Environmental groups and activists were also quick to slam the decision, with Tom Steyer, the president of NextGen Climate, accusing the Trump administration of putting "corporate interests ahead of American interests."
"The pipelines are all risk and no reward, allowing corporate polluters to transport oil through our country to be sold on the global market, while putting our air and water at serious risk," he said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota where the Dakota Access Pipeline is being built, welcomed the move, as did Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.
"What this country needs is more jobs, and that is why I have always been a proponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline and was an original cosponsor of legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project," Manchin, who has already supported several of Trump's nominees and initiatives, said in a statement. "With a majority of Americans in support of the Keystone XL pipeline's construction, I'm glad we are finally moving forward with this important project."
Just as Trump on Tuesday flicked to the need to "renegotiate" the Keystone XL pipeline terms, Trump during his campaign argued not just for quick approval of the pipeline, which would shuttle oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, but also said he would push for a deal that would grant US taxpayers a share of the profits. Trump said that the US would approve the pipeline while also seeking a "better deal."
Trump's approval of both pipelines are early signs of how his administration will take a drastically different approach to energy and environmental issues. Beyond approving the pipelines, Trump has also vowed to slash environmental protection regulations and has nominated several skeptics of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change to key Cabinet posts dealing with environmental issues.
New wave of protests expected
Environmental groups and their progressive allies have already begun to mobilize against Trump's directive.
The Indigenous Environmental Network, a leading tribal organization dedicated to blocking further construction of the Dakota Access project, promised a new round of "massive mobilization and civil disobedience."
The documents signed by Trump have not yet been made public or provided to the tribes or their legal advocates. But Phillip Ellis, a spokesman for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization that represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told CNN they were prepared to act.
"Whatever the decision from the President and whatever the mechanism, we will pursue on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe all legal outlets to oppose the permitting (of pipeline construction)," he said. "We just don't know what that is yet."
A lawyer with Earthjustice, Jan Hasselman, said it was his understanding that the memorandum signed by Trump "directs the Army to review and approve the easement quickly, 'to the extent permitted by law.'"
Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, needs an easement -- or legal permission -- from the Army Corps of Engineers to drill under Lake Oahe -- about a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock tribe reservation border -- to complete the project.
"The Army Corps of Engineers still needs to make a decision on the easement and if they issue it without the (Environmental Impact Statement) process we will amend our complaint to challenge it legally on behalf of the tribe," he said.
The headsman council at the Oceti Sakowin camp, home to a large protest site during demonstrations last year, issued a call on Tuesday for "allies and people to stand up where they are" and engage in "mass civil disobedience as a showing of solidarity for Standing Rock."
Desiree Kane, who spent seven months at the Oceti Sakowin Camp as a media volunteer, told CNN she ready to answer the call.
"I leave tomorrow morning," she said in an email.
Organizers from 350.org, the Sierra Club, CREDO, and other groups have already planned a rally outside the White House at 5 p.m. Tuesday to protest the decision.
"The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would be a disaster for the land and water, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and the climate," they said in a statement. "Both pipelines ignited widespread grassroots resistance worldwide, and Trump's executive orders are renewing mass opposition to the projects."

I am surprised that ANYBODY would be surprised at the above actions of the Racist, Fascist fossil fuel industry PUPPET Trump.

Trump is perfectly in agreement with the following "Free Market Policy" (and he ALWAYS HAS BEEN!):
(http://ecology.iww.org/images/SMcMillan1.jpg)


There are three legs to the fascism stool:


1) A melding of corporate and civil governance.

2) A foreign policy predicated on an aggressive nationalistic worldview.

3) An authoritarian government.

A political system that recognizes corporations as individual persons certainly provides one of those legs. Trump just completed the last two legs.

Have a nice day.

Title: President Trump is planning to sign executive orders on immigration this week
Post by: RE on January 24, 2017, 06:57:39 PM
Executive Orders?  Whatever happened to "Checks & Balances? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-trump-is-planning-to-sign-executive-orders-on-immigration-this-week/2017/01/24/aba22b7a-e287-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.7f972828a22e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-trump-is-planning-to-sign-executive-orders-on-immigration-this-week/2017/01/24/aba22b7a-e287-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.7f972828a22e)


National Security
President Trump is planning to sign executive orders on immigration this week

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/01/25/National-Security/Images/Trump_Inauguration_36420.jpg-7eda3-0784.jpg?uuid=t60jqOKfEealR1-5QR0zLA)
President Donald Trump speaks at The Salute To Our Armed Services Inaugural Ball in Washington on Friday. (Alex Brandon/AP)

By Jerry Markon and Robert Costa January 24 at 8:44 PM

President Trump is planning to sign executive orders on Wednesday toughening immigration enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border and targeting cities where local leaders refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation, part of a multi-day rollout of his long-promised crackdown on illegal immigration, officials familiar with the decision said Tuesday.

The moves represent Trump’s first effort to deliver on perhaps the signature issue that drove his presidential campaign: his belief that illegal immigration is out of control and threatening the country’s safety and security.

On Wednesday, Trump plans to speak to a town hall of employees at the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters in Washington, where he is expected to sign the orders. The effort to crack down on what are known as sanctuary cities will resonate with the Republican base, which has long criticized local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Later this week, officials said, the president plans to sign other orders restricting immigration and access to the United States for refugees and some visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, although the exact timing was being arranged late Tuesday and was subject to change. Residents from many of these places are already rarely granted U.S. visas.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

Senior Trump advisers such as chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions were deeply involved in the extended debate about the orders, said several people familiar with the discussions. These people emphasized that the week’s actions are intended to start fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises on immigration and bring Republicans behind Trump on the issue, one day before he speaks at Thursday’s congressional GOP retreat in Philadelphia. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the executive orders were still being finalized.

Although Trump’s immigration efforts this week are widely seen inside the White House as a victory for the self-described populist wing of his inner circle — which includes Bannon, Sessions and top policy adviser Stephen Miller — there are ongoing discussions about just how far to go on some policies, in particular the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA. The 2012 initiative has given temporary protection from deportation to hundreds of thousands of people who arrived in the United States as children. Trump vowed during the campaign to reverse it.
How sanctuary cities work and what might happen to them under Trump View Graphic

It was not clear late Tuesday how DACA would be addressed as part of Trump’s immigration actions, if at all, according to a White House official, because of differing views among Trump’s advisers and associates about the timing, scope and political benefits of ending the program or suspending it for new entries.

But whether DACA will be the target of an executive order remained unclear late Tuesday as discussions continued at the White House over how and when to address the program.

“Many options are being worked through on DACA,” the official said.

A second person close to Trump noted that Sessions remains highly influential and said during his Senate confirmation hearing this month that ending DACA “would certainly be constitutional.” The person said Sessions and Bannon are working to make sure DACA is addressed but have not finalized a new policy with Trump.

White House aides said Trump planned to meet Wednesday with several parents of children who were killed by immigrants who are in the country illegally. These activists, who refer to themselves as “angel moms,” were frequently featured during Trump’s campaign rallies and during the Republican National Convention.

Any immigration measures announced by the president will set up a fierce battle in Trump’s first week between the White House and advocates for immigrants, who were reacting with alarm Tuesday as word spread that immigration was on the table. Immigration experts said they had been told the orders later this week would include a halt to all admissions of refugees for 120 days, including from the Syrian civil war, and a 30-day pause in the issuance of immigrant and non-immigrant visas to people from some predominantly Muslim countries.

The planned visit to DHS will be Trump’s second to a Cabinet-level agency since he took office Friday. He spoke to employees at the CIA’s headquarters in Northern Virginia on Saturday.
Who is really going to pay for Trump's border wall?
Embed Share
Play Video1:52
President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that “Mexico will pay” for his proposed southern border wall – but he's also said the U.S. will be reimbursed by Mexico after building it with taxpayer funds. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

The presidential visit to DHS also would symbolize some of the more controversial parts of Trump’s agenda. He centered his campaign to some degree on his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants, a plan that has been vehemently opposed by Democrats and immigrant advocates.

Trump has also promised to beef up immigration enforcement along the border and inside the United States — including a tripling of the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — in an expensive and logistically difficult operation to remove millions of people from the country.

Perhaps most in dispute were Trump’s campaign comments on Muslims. He called at one point for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States as a counterterrorism measure and said he would halt immigration from Syria and deport Syrian refugees already in the country.

It is unclear how this week’s executive actions, orchestrated from the White House, will sit with the man who would enforce them: Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly. Kelly, a retired Marine general who was confirmed Friday, struck a markedly different tone from the president during his confirmation hearing, saying the controversial southwest border wall might not “be built anytime soon.’’

Kelly noted that when he was a Marine officer in Iraq, his forces secured stability in part by reaching out to clerics and other Muslim leaders. He also vowed to promote “tolerance” and said he didn’t think it was appropriate to target any group of people solely based on religion or ethnic background, including through the development of a registry.

DHS declined to comment on Tuesday. But people familiar with the matter said Kelly, known for his blunt manner, is already under intense pressure from the White House to enforce the immigration crackdown on which Trump built his campaign.

Abigail Hauslohner, Karen DeYoung, Ashley Parker and David Nakamura contributed to this report.
Title: Trump to direct federal resources toward building a border wall on Wednesday
Post by: RE on January 25, 2017, 04:33:42 AM
Mexico will pay for the wall.  Right.

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/donald-trump-immigration-refugees/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/donald-trump-immigration-refugees/)

Trump to direct federal resources toward building a border wall on Wednesday

By Jim Acosta, Dan Merica and Kevin Liptak, CNN

Updated 4:12 AM ET, Wed January 25, 2017
trump border wall explainer animation orig nws_00003622

donald trump immigration amnesty support orig cm_00000000.jpg
Trump on amnesty for some undocumented immigrants
donald trump undocumented immigrants crime fact check origwx ty_00013807.jpg
Fact checking Trump on crimes by immigrants
Karina Suarez says she will fight President-elect&#39;s anti-deportation policies
Dreamer prepares to fight Trump
A mother and her children walk outside the refugee house they stayed in after being released from detention
Families held after border crossing
Juan, an undocumented immigrant, lives in Chicago but misses his family in Mexico.
Dollars to Mexico: A village's lifeline
trump nm new clinton emails_00004512.jpg
Trump stokes immigration fears in New Mexico
Donald Trump: We need to get out 'bad hombres'
donald trump estero rally
Trump: Open immigration makes recent terror possible
trump border wall explainer animation orig nws_00003622.jpg
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
us mexico border fence jpm orig_00004913.jpg
What the US-Mexico border really looks like
Now Playing
Immigrant husband, wife support Trump's wall
Senior adviser Kellyanne Conway discusses the US-Mexico wall
Conway: Mexico will pay for the wall
California Democrats ready to fight Trump
US President-elect Donald Trump looks on while speaking during a &#39;Thank You Tour 2016&#39; rally in Orlando, Florida on December 16, 2016. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
GOP officials: Trump to have US pay for wall
immigrants fear possible deportation rosa flores pkg newday
Families prepare for possible deporation
donald trump immigration amnesty support orig cm_00000000.jpg
Trump on amnesty for some undocumented immigrants
donald trump undocumented immigrants crime fact check origwx ty_00013807.jpg
Fact checking Trump on crimes by immigrants
Karina Suarez says she will fight President-elect&#39;s anti-deportation policies
Dreamer prepares to fight Trump
A mother and her children walk outside the refugee house they stayed in after being released from detention
Families held after border crossing
Juan, an undocumented immigrant, lives in Chicago but misses his family in Mexico.
Dollars to Mexico: A village's lifeline
trump nm new clinton emails_00004512.jpg
Trump stokes immigration fears in New Mexico
Donald Trump: We need to get out 'bad hombres'
donald trump estero rally
Trump: Open immigration makes recent terror possible
trump border wall explainer animation orig nws_00003622.jpg
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
us mexico border fence jpm orig_00004913.jpg
What the US-Mexico border really looks like
Immigrant husband, wife support Trump's wall
Senior adviser Kellyanne Conway discusses the US-Mexico wall
Conway: Mexico will pay for the wall
California Democrats ready to fight Trump
US President-elect Donald Trump looks on while speaking during a &#39;Thank You Tour 2016&#39; rally in Orlando, Florida on December 16, 2016. / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
GOP officials: Trump to have US pay for wall
immigrants fear possible deportation rosa flores pkg newday
Families prepare for possible deporation
donald trump immigration amnesty support orig cm_00000000.jpg
Trump on amnesty for some undocumented immigrants

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will take executive action Wednesday directing federal resources toward building a border wall, a White House official confirmed to CNN.
The move begins a multi-day roll out of immigration actions that's also expected to include moves related to refugees and visas. Trump will make the announcement during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security at 1:25 p.m. ET.
Trump himself hinted at Wednesday's move on Twitter, writing "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"

Trump plans to issue two executive orders Wednesday during his visit to the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person familiar with the President's plan.

The first will direct the agency to begin construction of the border wall, as well as take steps to repair existing areas of fencing along the frontier between the US and Mexico. The order will also include a mandate to increase staff at Customs and Border Protection by 5,000 and alleviate the flood of migrants fleeing violence in Central America.
According to the person familiar with the plans, Trump's executive order will require DHS to publicly detail what aid is currently directed to Mexico, an indication of an eventual move toward redirecting some of that money to fund the wall's construction — and giving cover for a longstanding campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the structure.
Executive orders: one thing you need to know
Executive orders: one thing you need to know

Executive orders: one thing you need to know 00:53
A second order will work to eliminate so-called "sanctuary cities," where municipal governments refuse to hand over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. That order will triple resources for Immigration and Custom Enforcement and direct the federal government to identify criminal aliens in the US.
Officials said Trump would wait until later in the week to take action on visas and refugees, potentially as early as Thursday.
An order being prepared for Trump's signature includes the drastic measure of suspending the entire refugee program for four months in an attempt to gauge which country's migrants pose the least risk for US national security. A program for admitting Syrian refugees, who are fleeing civil war and a humanitarian crisis, would be ended indefinitely.
The measure being drafted specifies that migrants who engage in bigotry, so-called "honor killings" by males of their female relatives, and violence against women shouldn't be admitted. It caps the total number of refugees admitted in the 2017 fiscal year at 50,000. And it directs the Pentagon and US State Department to plan "safe zones" inside Syria, which the previous administration rejected as unlikely to alleviate civilian suffering.
Trump launched his campaign on a hardline immigration policy, proposing to build a "great, great wall" along the US-Mexico border and later to institute a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" until the US government could properly vet people coming in.
Trump&#39;s immigration policy (or what we know about it) in 13 illuminating tweets
13 illuminating Donald Trump immigration tweets
But as time went on, Trump's rhetoric on immigration began to change and, at times, soften.
His aides eventually walked back the Muslim ban to a ban on immigration from countries with widespread terrorism issues. And while Trump promised to deport all people in the country illegal throughout the campaign, Sean Spicer, his press secretary, said Monday that repealing President Barack Obama's two immigration executive actions were not the President's prime focus.
"First and foremost, the President's been very, very clear that we need to direct agencies to focus on those who are in this country illegally and have a record -- a criminal record or poses a threat to the American people," Spicer said. "That's where the priorities going to be."
CNN Politics app
Wall
Is Donald Trump&#39;s border wall possible?

Is Donald Trump's border wall possible? 04:03
Earlier in January, Trump's transition team engaged in active discussions with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Interior Department to begin planning a wall along the Mexican border, including how specific environmental laws could get in the way, CNN reported.
A US official with knowledge of a visit last month to the Interior Department -- which oversees most federal lands and major environmental laws -- said the transition team was particularly interested in finding out "how long it would take" to build the wall given potential legal obstacles.
"It seems clear they were trying to size up the environmental laws that may be obstacles to building the wall," the source said.
Another US official told CNN the Trump transition team has also reached out to the Army Corps of Engineers' Southwest Division, that has previously built border security fencing, to determine what previous fencing cost and how it was constructed. The team also asked Interior several questions, including how much wall would be needed, in an effort to determine a solid number of miles of wall necessary to secure the southern border.
Trump's announcement comes as a high-level delegation of Mexican leaders arrive in the US for talks. Trump spoke by phone with the Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on Saturday, and plans to meet with him later this month.
Refugees
What will Jared Kushner and Donald Trump&#39;s Middle East look like?
What will Jared Kushner and Donald Trump's Middle East look like?
The orders on immigration, a congressional aide said, are expected to include restrictions on refugees, and people with some visas from countries including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Reuters first reported the details of the executive orders.
Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, Trump's pick to lead the Homeland Security department, was confirmed last week by the Senate.
In the first three days of the Trump administration, the US admitted 136 Syrian refugees (Saturday-Monday), according to is State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.
"These executive orders will not make our nation any safer, rather it will make our nation more fearful and less welcoming, and such restrictions run contrary to very founding principles of our nation," Hassan Shibly, executive director of CAIR-Florida told CNN.
Shibly said CAIR is already getting calls from US citizens, green card holders, immigrants and even visitors who are concerned about whether they will be allowed to re-enter the US if they leave the country for vacations or travel.
"Donald Trump is making good on the most shameful and discriminatory promises he made on the campaign trail. He called for a Muslim ban and is now taking the first steps to implement one. This will not stand. The American people are better than this," said National Iranian American Council in a statement.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on January 25, 2017, 06:55:24 AM
Looks like Dump is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do.  He's going to create a bunch of temporary jobs building pipelines and building a wall.  Key here is temporary, but we all know Merikans can't think much past the next football game so nobody cares about the temporary aspect.  Long term thinking need not apply in Merka. 

Of course Dump is not doing this, the Corporatocracy/deep state/military industrial complex is doing this.  He's just following orders.  I can't believe anything other.  If he's not following orders he will be removed from office right quick.  Just like JFK was removed from office for going against the deep state plans for total war and global domination. 

Yep, Dumps doing all he said he would do, except for the whole "this is your Merka," "Merka is for you the people," "Goobermint is going to work for the Merkan people," and all of that other bullshit he diarrhead out of his mouth during his inauguration bull shit monologue.  It definitely was no speech. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 25, 2017, 11:35:07 AM
Looks like Dump is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do.  He's going to create a bunch of temporary jobs building pipelines and building a wall.  Key here is temporary, but we all know Merikans can't think much past the next football game so nobody cares about the temporary aspect.  Long term thinking need not apply in Merka. 

Of course Dump is not doing this, the Corporatocracy/deep state/military industrial complex is doing this.  He's just following orders.  I can't believe anything other.   :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

Yep, Dumps doing all he said he would do, except for the whole "this is your Merka," "Merka is for you the people," "Goobermint is going to work for the Merkan people," and all of that other bullshit he diarrhead out of his mouth during his inauguration bull shit monologue.  It definitely was no speech. 


Well said.  :emthup:

To Trump and his "alternative facts" true believing followers:
(http://i.imgur.com/xNqrlk8.jpg)

Agelbert NOTE: The full quote sheds even more light on who the Trumpers, many who claim to be Christians, REALLY are.

Quote
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” - Thomas Paine
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 25, 2017, 01:29:55 PM
While I agree with you guys basically it could be that Trump may be a tool of his tool more than a tool of the 'tool'.

Regardless of quibbling details the way the mainstream press is treating Trump is disgusting.  The clueless disrespect the clueless and a pretty sight it is not.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on January 25, 2017, 01:48:33 PM
While I agree with you guys basically it could be that Trump may be a tool of his tool more than a tool of the 'tool'.

Regardless of quibbling details the way the mainstream press is treating Trump is disgusting.  The clueless disrespect the clueless and a pretty sight it is not.

Journalism was always subject to bias, but it is quite apparent there are no more objective news outlets. Everybody has an axe to grind.

On Trump and speculation about what he might or might not do....I try not to jump to conclusions, but all the evidence seems to point to a new government envisioned by somebody whose name starts with K.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 25, 2017, 03:17:18 PM
While I agree with you guys basically it could be that Trump may be a tool of his tool more than a tool of the 'tool'.

Regardless of quibbling details the way the mainstream press is treating Trump is disgusting.  The clueless disrespect the clueless and a pretty sight it is not.

Journalism was always subject to bias, but it is quite apparent there are no more objective news outlets. Everybody has an axe to grind.

On Trump and speculation about what he might or might not do....I try not to jump to conclusions, but all the evidence seems to point to a new government envisioned by somebody whose name starts with K.

True, but the Trumpers still labor under the illusion that Trump "is not as bad" as Obama. He is FAR WORSE. An objective analysis, soon to be made by everybody and his dog who has illusions about TRUMP, will emerge within six months.

I predict the realization of the Trumpers that Obama was a piker compared to Trump's zeal to ADVANCE Empire and the Police State on behalf of Plutocratic polluters everywhere will dawn on them WHEN the BIG WAR SCARE that is coming is followed by a MAJOR PRICE SHOCK in fossil fuels that will finish DESTROYING the middle class in the USA (see below).

Any similarity between K-Dog and the canine in the photo is totally coincidental.  ;D

(http://helpparentsagewell.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/image0012.jpg)
$10.00 a Gallon?


 

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 25, 2017, 03:57:39 PM
Trump Administration Tells EPA to Cut Climate Change Page From Website 

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-climate-page-2213948545.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-climate-page-2213948545.html)

Federal Agencies Barred From Speaking to Press, Posting on Social Media

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gag-order-2213985518.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gag-order-2213985518.html)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216165623.jpeg)

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 25, 2017, 04:11:21 PM
Government Agencies Defy Trump by Tweeting Climate Facts (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html)

Agelbert NOTE: K-Dog responds that these commie librul employees need to be more respectful of El Presidente!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 25, 2017, 04:14:49 PM

Regardless of quibbling details the way the mainstream press is treating Trump is disgusting.  The clueless disrespect the clueless and a pretty sight it is not.

Personally, I think the MSM is being far too nice to His Trumpness.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 25, 2017, 05:57:20 PM
Government Agencies Defy Trump by Tweeting Climate Facts (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html)

Agelbert NOTE: K-Dog responds that these commie librul employees need to be more respectful of El Presidente!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)

Not these tweets no.  They tweet the truth in defiance of a crazy man who like the King of Nothing from that short little book 'The Little Prince' thinks he can change reality by commanding that it be so.  The bone I'm chewing on is the total lack of professionalism in the MSM.

If they were more professional they would be more effective.  Give him some rope and let him hang himself.  He will do it of that we can be sure, be patient.  Ordering that science be silenced is a good step on his road to ruin.

When I was a little boy I closed my eyes and concentrated on a pencil to try and make it levitate.  It didn't budge.  I learned I was not the center of the universe.  Trump in trying to create his own reality never lhaving earned that lesson.  It seems like he could be diagnosed with a narcissistic mental disorder.  Today's actions regarding the Mexican wall suggests he actually thinks he can make Mexico pay for the damn thing.  The country thought he was joking and elected him based on his assumed humor.  Now we find out he actually may be humorless and simply deranged.

What I just wrote makes the point that we don't have to wait long before we we can 'roast' Trump based on his actions and not on our emotional reaction to him.  I find that more satisfying.

RE does not mind the MSM hatchet job but I think RE would have Trump go straight to the head chopper.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on January 25, 2017, 07:12:01 PM
Trump Administration Tells EPA to Cut Climate Change Page From Website 

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-climate-page-2213948545.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-climate-page-2213948545.html)

Federal Agencies Barred From Speaking to Press, Posting on Social Media

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gag-order-2213985518.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gag-order-2213985518.html)
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241216151049.png)

Government Agencies Defy Trump by Tweeting Climate Facts (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/badlands-national-park-trump-2213976759.html)

Agelbert NOTE: K-Dog responds that these commie librul employees need to be more respectful of El Presidente!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif)

Not these tweets no.  They tweet the truth in defiance of a crazy man who like the King of Nothing from that short little book 'The Little Prince' thinks he can change reality by commanding that it be so.  The bone I'm chewing on is the total lack of professionalism in the MSM.

If they were more professional they would be more effective.  Give him some rope and let him hang himself.  He will do it of that we can be sure, be patient.  Ordering that science be silenced is a good step on his road to ruin.

When I was a little boy I closed my eyes and concentrated on a pencil to try and make it levitate.  It didn't budge.  I learned I was not the center of the universe.  Trump in trying to create his own reality never having earned that lesson.  It seems like he could be diagnosed with a narcissistic mental disorder.  Today's actions regarding the Mexican wall suggests he actually thinks he can make Mexico pay for the damn thing.  The country thought he was joking and elected him based on his assumed humor.  Now we find out he actually may be humorless and simply deranged.

What I just wrote makes the point that we don't have to wait long before we we can 'roast' Trump based on his actions and not on our emotional reaction to him.  I find that more satisfying.

RE does not mind the MSM hatchet job but I think RE would have Trump go straight to the head chopper.

K-Dog,

So you wake up when tweets start from some scientists and claim media "hatchet" jobs and "disrespect" to El Presidente up until NOW?  Did you miss all the other REAL NEWS about the ACTIONS of this POS President? ???
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

We NEVER had to wait long to "roast Trump" because he has CONSISTENTLY telegraphed his racism, authoritarian government, nationalist fascism AND his support of fossil fuel industry profit over planet and Empire ALL ALONG the campaign trail.

At present, the list of fascist moves, along with managerial incompetence (FEMA is NOT helping Georgia tornado victims properly - What next, a claim there WAS NO TORNADO OUTBREAK because that implies support for the Climate Change "Chinese Hoax"?   :evil4:) so far was TOTALLY predictable. I predicted it (see my post shortly  after the election about fascist OVERREACH).

But you have been rather slow to smell the Trump Fascism on steroids ever since the election.

It's time for you to leave the Obama fascist piker behind and face the facts, not some "alternative facts" nice euphemism for BOLD FACED LIES! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif) Obama was the fascist warm up. Trump is the MAIN EVENT.


(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0c9604f5a5b095bd9b9cef8602a0211319abf5b194eb41e5b7a39136f1c19bc5.jpg)

Quote
2950-10K • 11 min 27 sec ago

Regarding the election that just took place....We all knew that if the illegal seizure of our government was successful, the future of the entire planet would end up in deep peril. Weeks of opportunity went by to legally correct and redirect this evil back to where it came from. I'm still outraged the election wasn't declared invalid. It seems not a single Dem including Obama nor our Justice dept. cared to step up and do what was right for humanity. Obama wouldn't even fire Comey.

Sure, we've turned a blind eye to election fraud before, and it got us into endless war that is still costing trillions, not to mention a crashed economy. This time however it's far more evil. The entire planet is about to get sodomized by a few bloated old wheezers/sniffers with bad hair dye, and it seems we are all just standing by and watching the assault unfold.

How many years do the Koch's have left, a couple at best? ....and how many more billions do they need?

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm sure most have....Trump has the same type of mental illness that Hitler had. Standing in his shadows are Pence, Ryan, and McConnell ... just plain old SS type dumb- asses, all totally ignorant of the magnitude of what is about to unfold.

I sure hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid the only way to stop this now is the old fashion way. Crack open your history books...it ain't pretty.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2017/01/coming-war-net-neutrality (http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2017/01/coming-war-net-neutrality)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 25, 2017, 07:20:28 PM
The Bizarre Far-Right Billionaire Behind Trump's Presidency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQUkaEVe7II (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQUkaEVe7II)
Title: WAR WITH MEXICO BEGINS!
Post by: RE on January 26, 2017, 03:10:31 PM
OK, the title for this post is clickbait. lol.

However, it is getting serious down on the Border with Mejico.  Besides the Immigration issue is the NAFTA issue, and besides that the fact the Cantarell Oil Field is depleted to close to nothing and PEMEX is utterly broke.

Mexicans are not going to let this "Wall" go up without sabotaging it and undermining it with tunnels.  Mexico will never pay for this wall,  they are BROKE!

Stupidity on Parade.

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/mexicos-president-cancels-meeting-with-trump-over-wall.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/mexicos-president-cancels-meeting-with-trump-over-wall.html?_r=0)

 Americas
Mexico’s President Cancels Meeting With Trump Over Wall
Leer en español

By AZAM AHMEDJAN. 26, 2017

Mexico: We Won’t Pay for Wall
By REUTERS


Video
Mexico: We Won’t Pay for Wall

President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico said in a national address that the country would not pay for a border wall. He announced he would cancel his meeting with President Trump. By REUTERS. Photo by Henry Romero/Reuters. Watch in Times Video »

MEXICO CITY — President Donald J. Trump’s decision to build a wall along the southern border escalated into a diplomatic standoff on Thursday, with Mexico’s president publicly canceling a scheduled meeting at the White House and Mr. Trump firing back, accusing Mexico of burdening the United States with illegal immigrants, criminals and a trade deficit.

Mr. Trump’s push to fulfill his campaign pledge and build a border wall brought to a head months of simmering tensions, culminating in a remarkable back-and-forth between the two leaders.

By afternoon, Mr. Trump’s spokesman said the president would pay for the border wall by imposing a 20 percent tax on imports to the United States, which he said would raise billions of dollars.

The sparring began Thursday morning when the president of Mexico announced on Twitter that he was canceling his meeting with Mr. Trump next week, rejecting the visit after the new American leader ordered the border wall between the two nations.

Having called for dialogue in the face of Mr. Trump’s vows to build a wall during the American presidential campaign, President Enrique Peña Nieto ultimately bowed to public pressure in Mexico to respond more forcefully to his northern neighbor.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to beef up the nation’s deportation force and start construction on a new wall along the border. Adding to the perceived insult was the timing of the order: It came on the first day of talks between top Mexican officials and their counterparts in Washington, and just days before the meeting between the two presidents.

Mr. Trump’s action was enough to prompt Mr. Peña Nieto to start discussing whether to scrap his plans to visit the White House, according to Mexican officials. In a video message delivered over Twitter on Wednesday night, Mr. Peña Nieto reiterated his commitment to protect the interests of Mexico and the Mexican people, and he chided the move in Washington to continue with the wall.

“I regret and condemn the United States’ decision to continue with the construction of a wall that, for years now, far from uniting us, divides us,” he said.

Then on Thursday morning, Mr. Trump fired back, warning that he might cancel the meeting himself if Mexico did not agree to pay for the wall.

Just before Mr. Trump fired off his Twitter post, the Mexican foreign minister and Mr. Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, John F. Kelly, were preparing to see each other for a scheduled 11:30 a.m. meeting.

According to a senior American official, the secretary had been briefed. The appropriate flags had been arranged by the protocol staff at the Department of Homeland Security. Then, just as American officials greeted the minister outside the department’s headquarters in Northwest Washington, the minister received word from Mexico that he was being pulled back, the official said. The meeting never happened.

By early afternoon, Mr. Trump said it was the United States that was being treated unfairly.

“We have agreed to cancel our planned meeting,” Mr. Trump said in a new conference Thursday afternoon. “Unless Mexico is going to treat the U.S. fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless, and I want to go a different route. We have no choice.”
Morning Briefing: Americas

In Mexico, Mr. Peña Nieto had little political room to maneuver. With Mr. Trump’s order to build the wall, the perceived insults Mexico had endured during the campaign had finally turned into action. Decades of friendly relations between the nations — on matters involving trade, security and migration — seemed to be unraveling.

Calls began to come in from across the political spectrum for Mr. Peña Nieto to cancel his visit, and to respond with greater fortitude to the perceived menace from President Trump. On Twitter, Mr. Trump’s action was referred to by politicians and historians as a “an offense to Mexico,” a “slap in the face” and a “monument to lies.”

Historians said that not since President Calvin Coolidge threatened to invade a “Soviet Mexico” had the United States so deeply antagonized the Mexican populace.

“It is an unprecedented moment for the bilateral relationship,” said Genaro Lozano, a professor at the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City. “In the 19th century, we fought a war with the U.S.; now we find ourselves in a low-intensity war, a commercial one over Nafta and an immigration war due to the measures he just announced.”
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 26, 2017, 04:08:43 PM
I've had Canadians interfere with my employment history a couple of times in my life.  We can't work in Canada but they can come here to work.  Let's put a wall across the top of the country too.  Since the North Pole is up by Canada maybe Trump can get Santa to pay for it.

Of course if nobody employed foreign workers there would not be a problem with illegal immigrants because they would leave of their own accord.  For every illegal immigrant breaking the law by being here illegally there are at least two Republicans complicit with breaking the law by employing them.  Every time I watch a holier than though conservative ass-hole going off about illegal immigrants breaking the law I want to break something, and not a law.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 26, 2017, 11:34:45 PM
"Bloodbath at Foggy Bottom" has a nice ring to it.  As long as Nuland is gone, I'm happy, but presumably there were lots more like her.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-26/entire-senior-management-team-state-department-just-resigned (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-26/entire-senior-management-team-state-department-just-resigned)
Wave Of State Department Personnel Resign, Are Fired As Tillerson Takes Control
Tyler Durden
Jan 26, 2017

Update: according to a CNN report - so as always take with lots of salt - the story has shifted materially, because according to two senior administration officials, it wasn't a resignation by the State Department officials, but more of a termination: "the Trump administration told four top State Department management officials that their services were no longer needed as part of an effort to "clean house" at Foggy Bottom."

    Patrick Kennedy, who served for nine years as the undersecretary for management, Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Joyce Anne Barr, and Ambassador Gentry Smith, director of the Office for Foreign Missions, were sent letters by the White House that their service was no longer required, the sources told CNN.

    All four, career officers serving in positions appointed by the President, submitted letters of resignation per tradition at the beginning of a new administration. The letters from the White House said that their resignations were accepted and they were thanked for their service.

    The White House usually asks career officials in such positions to stay on for a few months until their successors are confirmed.

    "Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong," one senior State Department official said. "These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house."

    Mark Toner, the State Department's acting spokesman, said in a statement that "These positions are political appointments, and require the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm them in these roles. They are not career appointments but of limited term."

A second official echoed that the move appeared to be an effort by the new administration to "clean house" among the State Department's top leadership. "The department will not collapse," the second official said. "Everyone has good deputies. It's a huge institutional loss, but the department has excellent subordinates and the career people will step up. They will take up the responsibility."

Victoria Nuland, the State Department's assistant secretary for Europe, was also not asked to stay on.

The following org charts breaks out the unfilled appointee positions, in blue, while the red crosses show the resignations

    Here's an updated State Department Org Chart.

    Blue X's are unfilled appointee positions. Red X's are resignations. pic.twitter.com/gF5p0YGFKC

    — Emily Roslin v Praze (@EmilyGorcenski) January 26, 2017

 

* * *

Earlier:

Demonstrating just how ideologically aligned with the Obama administration was the entire US State Department, moments ago the WaPo reported that "the entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era."

The mass resignation took place as Rex Tillerson was inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land.

According to WaPo's Josh Rogin who suddenly has no more senior level sources left at State:

    "I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me."

    Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Additionally, "Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people."

    “It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”

There were more: several senior foreign service officers in the State Department’s regional bureaus have also left their posts or resigned since the election. But the emptying of leadership in the management bureaus is more disruptive because those offices need to be led by people who know the department and have experience running its complicated bureaucracies. There’s no easy way to replace that via the private sector, said Wade.

    “Diplomatic security, consular affairs, there’s just not a corollary that exists outside the department, and you at least can afford a learning curve in these areas where issues can quickly become matters of life and death,” he said. “The muscle memory is critical. These retirements are a big loss. They leave a void. These are very difficult people to replace.”

    Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department. Just days before he resigned, Kennedy was taking on more responsibility inside the department and working closely with the transition. His departure was a surprise to other State Department officials who were working with him.

Rogin's conclusion: "By itself, the sudden departure of the State Department’s entire senior management team is disruptive enough. But in the context of a president who railed against the U.S. foreign policy establishment during his campaign and secretary of state with no government experience, the vacancies are much more concerning."

On the other hand, if Tillerson wanted a real clean slate, he just got it.
Title: Re: WAR WITH MEXICO BEGINS!
Post by: RE on January 26, 2017, 11:36:08 PM
What's with the International Diplomacy by Twitshit? ???  :icon_scratch:

Workin' real good so far!  ::)

Obviously, the Mexicans are not going to pay for a wall they don't want put up to begin with and don't see a need for, and couldn't afford to put up even if they did want it.

So now there is a big internet spat between the two Presidents over the internet and their meeting is cancelled.  Look forward to more meetings with Trumpty-Dumpty being cancelled by more foreign pols, he's a Bull in a China Shop and nobody can stand him!

On top of the fact nobody wants to meet with him personally, practically the whole fucking State Department top administrative drones resigned as well.  So who is going to talk to who here?  NOBODY!

Parenthetically, I will note that Pena-Nieto doesn't look the LEAST bit Mexican!  This guy is purebreed Spanish Conquistadore!  Not a drop of Native Genes ever made it into this guy's family!

This is going downhill very quickly.

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/americas/mexico-pena-nieto-donald-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/americas/mexico-pena-nieto-donald-trump.html)

 Americas
In a Corner, President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico Punches Back

By AZAM AHMEDJAN.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/27/us/PENANIETO/PENANIETO-master768.jpg)
President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico this week. His cautious approach to President Trump had caused an outcry in Mexico. Credit Ronaldo Schemidt/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

MEXICO CITY — Hunkered down in the presidential palace, Enrique Peña Nieto, the unpopular leader of Mexico, was besieged on both sides.

The new American president, Donald J. Trump, had just ordered the construction of a border wall between the two countries, and the public outcry in Mexico was deafening. Top cabinet officials, meanwhile, counseled caution, urging Mr. Peña Nieto not to cancel his meeting with Mr. Trump at the White House next week.

For months, though his ratings hovered near the single digits, the worst of any Mexican president in recent history, Mr. Peña Nieto resisted the temptation to saber-rattle, arguing that the relationship with America was simply too important to fall prey to a war of words.

He wanted to give diplomacy one last try. By Thursday morning, the effort had officially failed.

In a blitz of Twitter messages from the two presidents, fired off over the past two days, the first full-blown foreign policy standoff of the Trump administration has taken shape.


    As Trump Orders Wall, Mexico’s President Considers Canceling U.S. Trip JAN. 25, 2017
    ECONOMIC SCENE
    Mexico’s Potential Weapons if Trump Declares War on Nafta JAN. 24, 2017
    Facing Trump, Mexicans Think the Unthinkable: Leaving Nafta JAN. 24, 2017
    Preparing to Meet Trump, Mexican Leader Seeks Common Ground JAN. 23, 2017
    Peña Nieto Faces Unrest in Mexico as Gas Prices Climb and Trump Ascends JAN. 8, 2017

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

The public sparring came after months of simmering tensions between the two men. For decades, the United States and Mexico have expanded their cooperation and increasingly entwined their fortunes. Now the relationship between America and one of its most important allies and trading partners is being rewritten — on Twitter — culminating in a remarkable back-and-forth as the world looked on.

It began with Mr. Trump’s proclamation to build the wall. Next came a diplomatic response from Mr. Peña Nieto, urging unity, accompanied by suggestions from his aides that the meeting might be scrapped over the offense.

Mr. Trump followed on Thursday morning with a threat to cancel the meeting himself. Soon after, Mr. Peña Nieto officially announced that he would not attend, effectively beating Mr. Trump to the punch.

The exchange offered insight into the evolution of Mexico’s president, who began his term with great fanfare in 2012, only to be hounded by scandal, the violence engulfing his nation, a steady decline in the polls and, now, perhaps the worst period in Mexican-American relations since President Calvin Coolidge.

After Mr. Peña Nieto called off the meeting in a Twitter post, Mr. Trump fired back, accusing Mexico of burdening the United States with illegal immigrants, criminals and a trade deficit.

“Most illegal immigration is coming from our southern border,” Mr. Trump said at a Republican retreat. “I’ve said many times that the American people will not pay for the wall, and I’ve made that clear to the government of Mexico.”

Now Mr. Peña Nieto must find a way to preserve his nation’s economic interests while confronting an unpredictable, and at times hostile, American president.

In some respects, Mexico has become a trial run for Mr. Trump’s promise to place America first on the global stage.

In his dealings with Mr. Trump, Mr. Peña Nieto has found himself in a bind: trapped between his own people, who have demanded a vehement response to Mr. Trump’s taunts about Mexico, and a foreign leader who controls much of his country’s destiny.
Morning Briefing: Americas

“Peña Nieto has made a superhuman effort,” said Jesus Silva-Herzog, a professor at the School of Government at Tecnológico de Monterrey. “He has gone above and beyond to preserve the friendship with America and has done everything possible, while risking all of his prestige and popularity, to try to find a common ground of trust with Mr. Trump.”

During the campaign and now as president, Mr. Trump has taken aim at perhaps the most prized possession of Mexico: its image. Throughout his presidency, the Mexican leader has tried to portray his country as a place of economic opportunity, a cultural capital and a nation rising on the world stage. Mr. Trump has sought to show the opposite, characterizing Mexico as a bastion of crime, illegal immigration and unfair trade.

Mr. Peña Nieto has faced a dilemma: to defend Mexico’s honor, or to defend its national interests by preserving ties with the United States at all costs.

For months, Mr. Peña Nieto made his choice clear. To the growing anger of many Mexicans, he avoided responding rashly to Mr. Trump. Calls for the building of a wall, promises to deport millions and threats to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement have been met with measured, understated responses. Adding to his vulnerability are the millions of Mexican citizens living in the United States, whom Mr. Trump appeared to target in his executive orders on Wednesday.

For Mr. Peña Nieto, the economics were particularly difficult. Having begun his presidency with a focus on the economy, the idea of canceling Nafta or leaving Mexico a less desirable place for foreign investment was an existential crisis waiting to happen.

Dialogue, Mr. Peña Nieto said, was the only way forward. It was in keeping with the start of his administration, when he negotiated the passage of several major economic reforms with two rival political parties, paving the way for needed changes to the nation’s antiquated systems of telecommunications, energy and education.

Soon after that, his administration began to face headwinds. The disappearance of 43 teaching students, a scandal involving his wife’s purchase of a house, and a moribund economy began to gnaw at his popularity, and the slide in approval ratings continued from there.

By the time Mr. Peña Nieto invited Mr. Trump to Mexico for a visit during the American presidential campaign, his own image was as tarnished as the one Mr. Trump had painted of Mexico. The Mexican leader was trying to find common ground and engage in dialogue with the candidate, but at home, it was a political miscalculation. His reputation in Mexico sank even further.

But once Mr. Trump took office and pushed to make good on his campaign pledge to build a wall, the pressure on Mr. Peña Nieto became too great. Across the Mexican political and intellectual class, calls for him to cancel the meeting reached a fever pitch this week. Officials and experts said Mr. Trump’s Twitter post Thursday morning, suggesting he might cancel the meeting, made the decision less controversial: Mr. Peña Nieto could not let Mr. Trump be the one to cancel.

“It would have been like a cousin inviting us to dinner and then uninviting us, or worse, said we were only allowed to come if we paid for dinner,” Mr. Silva-Herzog said, referring to Mr. Trump’s repeated promises to make Mexico pay for the wall.

Now, despite the tensions with the United States and the problems they may cause, there is a silver lining, especially for the perception of Mr. Peña Nieto at home.

“These are ugly times, and things will get uglier. I don’t really see a way out it, but in this context, our great advantage will be that Mexicans are united,” Javier Solórzano, a prominent journalist, said in a video posted online. The country, he added, “is now united around the president.”
Title: Questions Abound After Trump Says Tax Will Pay for Wall
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 01:31:26 AM
MAKE THOSE FUCKING MEXICANS PAY UP!

Yes that will work.  ::)  HTF can people be this stupid?  It is a ZERO SUM GAME.  The Mexicans LOST the game, they are BROKE.  You cannot bleed money from a stone, and you cannot "create wealth" when your fucking oil wells have gone dry.  Anyone who believes in wealth creation has got a few screws loose in the attic.

RE

Questions Abound After Trump Says Tax Will Pay for Wall

    By josh lederman and josh boak, associated press

WASHINGTON — Jan 27, 2017, 3:32 AM ET

    Share
    Email

President Donald Trump is promising Mexico will pay for his massive border wall. On Thursday, his administration finally suggested how: a 20 percent tax on products imported from south of the border.

The new measure could be part of a comprehensive tax reform package that Trump and Congress will work out, the White House said. But there was great ambiguity about the proposal. White House officials later clarified that the tax was but one possible way Trump could finance the wall.

Much was left unanswered. Would Mexico be footing the bill or American consumers? What items would become more expensive? Is this even legal?

Some of the details Trump's proposal still has to work out:

IS IT A TAX, A TARIFF OR SOMETHING ELSE?

It's unclear.

The White House said Congress' tax overhaul would place a 20 percent tax on imports from any country enjoying a trade surplus with the United States. In other words, countries selling more goods and service to the U.S. than buying from it. The idea is to rebalance the playing field for U.S. companies by discouraging Americans from importing.

The idea appears to overlap with a plan House Republicans are pushing called "border adjustment." Under this plan, the U.S. would refrain from taxing American companies' exports, but would tax imports.

The new revenues are projected to top $1 trillion over a decade. The money had been envisioned as an offset for lowering U.S. corporate income tax rates, though House Republicans say it could also pay for a wall.

Trump, however, recently said he didn't like the "border adjustment" idea.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR AMERICANS?

Mexican products would become more expensive.

That means pricier tequila, but also things Americans need: cars, eyeglasses and many basic groceries.

A Toyota Camry? About $1,000 more, according to Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota North America, noting that a quarter of the car's parts are imported.

U.S. exporters are behind the House plan because it would reduce their taxes.

Here's the flip side: Importers, including big retailers and consumer electronics firms, say the higher prices for Mexican products could hurt sales. And that means American jobs.

Retailers such as Wal-Mart also could face higher tax burdens.

WOULD MEXICO REALLY BE PAYING?

Not quite.

The U.S. could recoup some of the wall's costs by changing the tax and trade policies with Mexico. But the money wouldn't necessarily be coming from Mexican taxpayers or the Mexican government.

While the tax would land first on companies exporting from Mexico, the costs would likely be passed on to consumers. That leaves Americans footing much of the likely bill.

Trump has said he's OK with being "reimbursed" at a later point because he is keen to start building the wall immediately.

WOULD IT RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THE WALL?

Probably.

Various estimates put the wall's cost at up to $15 billion.

House Republicans expect their plan to pull in much more than that in its first year. They say that could easily cover the costs of the wall.

IS IT LEGAL?

To be determined.

The U.S. has a range of obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement and at the World Trade Organization. And Mexico is likely to challenge any new tax that penalizes its economy.

Trump has said he plans to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico, however, is under no obligation to soften the agreement for his sake.

Other countries may also object, if their products and services are targeted.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said the border adjustment is essentially a tariff that would be struck down by the WTO if it targets Mexico.

HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE ECONOMY?

A topic of great dispute.

The White House said the plan would increase U.S. wages, help U.S. businesses and consumers, and deliver "huge economic benefits." With so much of the plan ill-defined, it's impossible to substantiate those claims.

Any turbulence in the U.S.-Mexican trade relationship could have implications for the entire world.

Mexico is the second-largest exporter to the United States, after China. The United States imported roughly $271 billion of goods from Mexico during the first 11 months of 2016, according to the Commerce Department, and ran a trade deficit of almost $60 billion.

DO REPUBLICANS LIKE TRUMP'S PLAN?

Not all of them.

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan said on Twitter it would be a "tax on Americans to pay for the wall." Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he was "mucho sad" and that "any policy proposal which drives up costs of Corona, tequila or margaritas is a big-time bad idea."

Even Trump's pick for commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, dismissed the idea of using tariffs as a trade ploy.

Republicans have traditionally hailed themselves as the party of free trade.

WHAT OTHER WAYS COULD TRUMP GET MEXICO TO PAY?

During the campaign, Trump floated a number of possibilities without committing to any in particular.

He proposed changing a rule under the USA Patriot Act to block some of the roughly $25 billion in remittances that Mexicans living in the U.S. send home each year. He said he would refuse to free up the money until Mexico agrees to pay the U.S. between $5 billion and $10 billion.

Opponents of that plan say Mexicans in the U.S. would likely find other ways to send money back. They could take cash with them when traveling, wire money to a non-Mexican bank or use off-the-books transfers that are difficult to police.

Trump also suggested increasing visa fees for Mexicans to raise money, or canceling business and tourist visas issued to Mexicans until their country pays for the wall.

———

AP Business Writer Tom Krisher in Detroit and writers Erica Werner and Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington contributed to this report.

———

Reach Josh Boak on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshboak (http://twitter.com/joshboak)

Reach Josh Lederman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP (http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 27, 2017, 01:39:07 PM
Trump only respects business people like himself.  He considers everyone else to be stupid.  Regarding the State Department culture he is not wrong about them being stupid so good he is cleaning house.  We have a POTUS who does not want globalization which has been the unwritten mission statement of the State Department until now.  Good for him.

Some Diners will not admit this but Trump has more in common with a collapse centric world view than any of the lost in la-la land opponents who ran against him to the end of the election.  He does not have all the ingredients, just some, but that is more than anyone else had.

I expect to be given a very hard time for what I just wrote.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 02:01:06 PM
Trump only respects business people like himself.  He considers everyone else to be stupid.  Regarding the State Department culture he is not wrong about them being stupid so good he is cleaning house.  We have a POTUS who does not want globalization which has been the unwritten mission statement of the State Department until now.  Good for him.

Some Diners will not admit this but Trump has more in common with a collapse centric world view than any of the lost in la-la land opponents who ran against him to the end of the election.  He does not have all the ingredients, just some, but that is more than anyone else had.

I expect to be given a very hard time for what I just wrote.

"Cleaning House" is a good thing, except when all you do is to replace one set of vermin with a new set.  Rex Tillerson is not exactly Mr. Clean you know.

The other problem is one of continuity.  Whoever is going to be dropped into all these apparatchik spots  has no clue about how the whole State Dept works, no contacts, nada.  The folks who just left probabably took their Rolodexes with them on the way out the door.

Imagine a plane flying at 30,000 feet and the entire cockpit crew jumps out of the plane with parachutes.  Now you have to pick a new cockpit crew from the passengers, one of whom may have flow a Cessna at some time in his life.  Your Boeing Jet is not likely to fly too well.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 27, 2017, 02:18:15 PM
Reminds me of a reality TV show idea I heard once where the pilot jumps out of a 747 and if you can 'land a million' you can keep the money.  The State Department is not an airplane however and if a few color revolutions get stopped that is a good thing.
Title: Trump Backs Mexico into a Corner
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 02:23:01 PM
I like the part about Mexicans not enforcing patents on drugs!  :icon_sunny:  The Pharma industry will not be happy about that!  This is getting good!

RE

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/trump-backs-mexico-into-a-corner-214700 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/trump-backs-mexico-into-a-corner-214700)

Letter from Mexico
Trump Backs Mexico into a Corner

At some point, Mexicans may just decide to turn their backs on the United States.

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/624920e/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fbd%2F9e%2F9d542ba84c24a14a186a0a021b7b%2F170127-enrique-pena-nieto-getty-1160.jpg)

By John M. Ackerman

January 27, 2017
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

MEXICO CITY—On Barack Obama’s first visit to Mexico as president in 2009, thousands of people spontaneously swarmed onto Mexico City’s grand Reforma Avenue to see whether they could get a peek at the 44th president of the United States as he passed by. Despite a long history of conflict between the two countries, the Mexican people were highly optimistic about the future of binational relations and believed in Obama’s message of hope and renovation.

In contrast, after the events of this past week, it will be difficult for Donald Trump to ever set foot on Mexican soil. Mexicans are a proud and dignified people and do not take well to being humiliated in public. Indeed, in response to the constant insults and lack of respect coming out of the new U.S. administration, Mexican citizen groups already have started to plan boycotts of Citibank, Walmart and other U.S. corporations. The newspapers and TV shows are full of biting commentary about Trump’s intolerant and aggressive behavior. At a rally a couple of weeks ago, one of the protesters even burned an American flag, something entirely unprecedented for more than a century in Mexico.

Trump is apparently confident that Mexico´s weak and highly questioned president, Enrique Peña Nieto, will eventually cave into his demands. As I have argued elsewhere, Peña Nieto was instrumental in making Trump’s victory possible and generally shares the same pro-corporate worldview. Trump’s real Latin American double is not Hugo Chávez or Evo Morales, as some misguided commentators have suggested, but Peña Nieto.
Peña Nieto´s first actions since Trump´s election have been conciliatory—some might say servile. At the beginning of January, he appointed Luis Videgaray, an economist with no diplomatic experience but with ties to Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, as Mexico's new secretary of foreign relations. And the day before Trump´s inauguration, Peña Nieto sent over Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán to the United States as a demonstration of his willingness to collaborate with the new administration.

But Trump has underestimated the response of the Mexican people. Even before Jan. 20, Mexico was already a tinderbox. The drastic reduction of international oil prices along with the collapse in the value of the Mexican peso—50 percent since Peña Nieto took power in 2012—has led to a serious fiscal crisis along with a jump in inflation. The government has responded with the highly questionable strategy of squeezing consumers through new taxes on gasoline and hiking the prices on public utilities, such as electricity.

This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. On Jan. 1, the day the new gas and electricity prices came into effect, tens of thousands of angry citizens took to the streets throughout the country. Since then there have been marches and protests almost every day. Just about every city, small, medium or large, has participated in the mobilizations and the protests have quickly morphed from being about gas and electricity prices to a broader set of demands.

Mexicans blame Peña Nieto’s privatizing oil reforms for the weakness of Mexican oil production and thereby the increase in oil prices. Corruption scandals have drawn close to the president’s inner circle, including former governors Humberto Moreira and Javier Duarte, fueling further outrage. Recent polls place his approval rating at 12 percent, the lowest for any Mexican president in modern history. Mexicans are demanding a full overhaul of the entire political system.

This is the context that explains Peña Nieto’s surprising cancellation of next Tuesday's meeting with Trump in the White House. In other circumstances, Peña Nieto would have been willing to subject himself to Trump's abuse and even explore different options for Mexico making a contribution to the border wall. After all, in his frequent meetings with Obama, Peña Nieto never uttered a forceful word or gave any sign of standing up to Washington. Only after Trump and his team embarrassed him and threatened to slap tariffs on Mexican goods has he shown any hint of a backbone.

The two leaders spoke again on Friday, and issued face-saving statements on the need to “work together to stop drug cartels, drug trafficking and illegal guns and arms sales” while agreeing to disagree on who would pay for Trump’s wall. “Both presidents have instructed their teams to continue the dialogue to strengthen this important strategic and economic relationship in a constructive way,” the White House readout said.

But it’s other politicians, such as left-wing presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who have best expressed the feeling on the streets. López Obrador has called on Peña Nieto to formally bring charges against Trump to the United Nations for human rights violations and has announced a tour to the United States to construct a binational “citizen front” against xenophobia.

The greatest beneficiary of Peña Nieto’s humiliation will indeed be the left—and not just in Mexico. In the midst of the Twitter exchange between Peña Nieto and Trump, in which the U.S. president wrote, “Mexico has taken advantage of the U.S. for long enough. Massive trade deficits & little help on the very weak border must change, NOW!”, Bolivian President Evo Morales reached out to the Mexican people: “I make a call to our Mexican brothers to look more to the south; to build unity together on the basis of our Latin American and Caribbean identity.” As of noon on Friday, Morales’ tweet has been retweeted 10 times more than any other tweet in the Bolivian president’s entire timeline.

Many have noted that the Mexican economy relies heavily on exports to the United States Some 16 percent of U.S. exports go to Mexico, while 80 percent of Mexico’s go to the United States. So it would seem Peña Nieto has little recourse but to accede to Trump’s demands.

    1-27-17-tfc-lede.jpeg

    The Friday Cover
    Trump’s Yuge Week One

    By Michael Grunwald
    08_donald_trump_179_ap_1160.jpg

    FOURTH ESTATE
    Trump the Bully

    By Jack Shafer
    09_donald_trump_39_ap_1160.jpg

    SOAPBOX
    Trump’s Bad Voter Fraud Math

    By Chris Ashby

Consider, however, that the Mexican economy is the 15th largest in the world, with an annual GDP of $1 trillion, and is the second-largest market for U.S. goods. And Mexico has the means to retaliate for any Trump punishments. Mark Weisbrot, for instance, an economist at the D.C.-based think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research, has proposed that Mexico simply refuse to enforce U.S. patents and copyrights on its soil, for instance in the area of pharmaceuticals or technology. Expensive drugs and software could immediately be provided at bargain-basement prices—generating incredible savings for Mexicans and significantly cutting into the profits of major U.S. corporations.

That, of course, would probably mean leaving the North America Free Trade Agreement, the trade pact that Trump has vowed to renegotiate. Even stalwart neoliberal supporters of NAFTA among Mexico’s political class have begun to argue that it wouldn’t be so bad to simply walk away from it. Last Tuesday, Mexico’s economy minister Ildefonso Guajardo made this threat official, telling a television interviewer: “If we go for something that is less than what we have, well, then there is no sense in staying.”

Trump’s attitude has led to a transformation of Mexico’s medium and long term economic calculations. Although a withdrawal from NAFTA would create short-term pain, it would also create the opportunity for Mexico to finally delink itself from its excessive dependency on the U.S. economy and consolidate its alliances with other Latin American countries as well as with Europe and Asia. Ironically, Trump’s attack on Mexico be just what Mexicans need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

John M. Ackerman is professor at the Institute for Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), editor-in-chief of The Mexican Law Review and a columnist at both Proceso magazine and La Jornada newspaper. Contact: www.johnackerman.blogspot.com (http://www.johnackerman.blogspot.com) Twitter: @JohnMAckerman.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 02:35:23 PM
Reminds me of a reality TV show idea I heard once where the pilot jumps out of a 747 and if you can 'land a million' you can keep the money.  The State Department is not an airplane however and if a few color revolutions get stopped that is a good thing.

We'll just need to see how it goes, but I seriously doubt this will stop any color revolutions.  With Rex in charge, the color of the revolutions will just change to Exxon colors.

(http://illuminatisymbols.info/wp-content/themes/grido/themify/img.php?src=http://illuminatisymbols.info/wp-content/uploads/illuminati-symbol-exxon-double-cross.gif&w=670&h=&zc=1)

RE
Title: This Mexican Company Could Make a Killing from Trump’s Policies
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 03:00:30 PM
I give you 5:2 Odds His Trumpness is buying stock in Mexican Cement Companies right now.

RE

http://wolfstreet.com/2017/01/27/mexican-company-cemex-to-profit-from-trump-policies/ (http://wolfstreet.com/2017/01/27/mexican-company-cemex-to-profit-from-trump-policies/)

This Mexican Company Could Make a Killing from Trump’s Policies
by Don Quijones • Jan 27, 2017 • 34 Comments   

Business is Business.
By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.

True to his word, President Donald Trump has launched his plan to build a “big, beautiful, powerful” wall to separate the U.S. from its third biggest trading partner, Mexico. And he has determined that it will be Mexico that will end up paying the lion’s share of the construction costs, which could range from $12 billion (Trump’s latest estimate) to $31 billion (industry estimates).

Naturally, Mexico has other ideas. The problem for President Enrique Peña Nieto is that his scandal-tarnished administration currently enjoys a public approval rating of just 9%. The more he dithers and procrastinates in his standoff with Trump, the faster it plummets.

But on Thursday, Trump gave him a rare helping hand. By insisting that next week’s scheduled meeting on NAFTA renegotiation should only go ahead if Peña Nieto agrees beforehand to stump up cash for the wall, Trump gifted him the perfect justification for withdrawing from the meeting, as Mexican politicians and pundits have been urging him to for days, without losing too much face.
Souring Relations

Bilateral relations between the U.S. and Mexico have curdled to their worst point in decades. With Canada siding with the U.S. in defense of its own national interests, Mexico is all of a sudden out on a limb. NAFTA, which helped transform Mexico into a liberalized, low-cost industrial powerhouse while shackling its economic fate to its northern neighbors, is in tatters.

Now Mexico finds itself in an unenviable (but not quite impossible) negotiating position, since roughly 80% of its exports go to the US, (representing around 13% of US imports, or amounting to $295 billion in 2015).

And the new U.S. government seems determined to plow ahead with plans to transform the border into one of the longest man-made walls in history. Trump’s dream of an unbroken barrier — man made and natural — stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf Coast will probably emulate the design of Israel’s much smaller partition wall, which nonetheless took two years to build. For most companies and communities on either side of the US-Mexican border, it will inevitably mean lots of disruption and less business.




The Right Place at the Right Time

But not all Mexican companies are necessarily opposed. One of the biggest potential beneficiaries of the wall project is Mexico’s Cemex. The largest cement maker in the Americas and the world’s second-largest cement and building materials producer, Cemex would be strongly positioned to profit from such a large construction project, according to a report published before the elections by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, which called the wall “a huge opportunity for those companies involved in its construction.”

“Despite arguments concerning which government will pay for construction, the large quantities of materials required may necessitate procurement from both sides of the border,” the report said.

In other words, the prospects for pork are likely to be outstanding.

Richard Steer, the chairman of global construction consultants Gleeds, warns that the wall would be one of the most difficult and expensive construction projects ever undertaken due to the difficulty of bringing so many heavy materials to remote regions. It will require roads to be built just to get access to areas in which the international boundary crosses desert or mountain terrain.

Cemex has cement operations on both sides of the border. And a lot of cement will be needed. According to Bloomberg, building the wall would require about 7 million cubic meters of concrete, which could cost more than $700 million at current prices. That’s based on the assumption that the structure would extend 1,000 miles, rise 40 feet and reach seven feet underground, and have a thickness of 10 inches.
Business Is Business

For Cemex, the U.S. is a big market, accounting for 20% of its revenues in the last quarter. Over the past 12 months the company has seen its shares rise 130%, dovetailing almost perfectly with the rise of candidate Trump. In the last week alone its stock has surged 17% on speculation, as yet unconfirmed, that it will participate in the construction of the wall.

Cemix is also expected to benefit handsomely from Trump’s plans to lavish up to half a trillion dollars on roads, bridges, tunnels and airports. It’s a dramatic turn of events for a company that came perilously close to bankruptcy in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Ironically, its fortunes may now rest with a U.S. administration that is determined to rebalance its relations with Mexico, to Mexico’s detriment. As such, agreeing to participate in Trump’s wall project is not without risks, especially given the strength of opposition to the project at home.

“It would be shameful for Mexican companies to participate,” says Manuel Bartlett, a senator with Mexico’s Worker’s Party. “They would be putting money before national interest.”

But business is business, and for multinational corporations with operations and investors spanning the globe, self-interest invariably trumps national loyalty — unless, of course, they’re given little choice in the matter. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.

It’s not all NAFTA’s fault, however. Read…  Mauled by Peso Crash & Inflation, Mexico to Cut its Dependence on US Food Producers
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 27, 2017, 04:43:22 PM
There is no benefit to Mexico in having the wall built and the first politician in Mexico to suggest paying for the wall with the Mexican people's money is going to wind up hanging by his neck from a bridge.  Not that they would. 

Let's say you live next to a neighbor who builds a wall on your mutual property line of that you don't like.  The neighbor then knocks on your door and asks you to pay for his wall.

What are you going to do?

Exactly right, so what is really going on is that Trump is thinking of legal guest workers.  That is the only explanation that makes any sense for this foolishness to have gone on as long as it has.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 27, 2017, 05:18:28 PM
There is no benefit to Mexico in having the wall built and the first politician in Mexico to suggest paying for the wall with the Mexican people's money is going to wind up hanging by his neck from a bridge.  Not that they would. 

Let's say you live next to a neighbor who builds a wall on your mutual property line of that you don't like.  The neighbor then knocks on your door and asks you to pay for his wall.

What are you going to do?

Exactly right, so what is really going on is that Trump is thinking of legal guest workers.  That is the only explanation that makes any sense for this foolishness to have gone on as long as it has.

It is just another stupid attempt to control the refugee/migration problem that is GLOBAL.

It's not going to work.  But in the meantime, Trumpty-Dumpty looks like he is doing something.

RE
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread: Immigration CLUSTERFUCK!
Post by: RE on January 28, 2017, 04:40:38 PM
This looks about as well planned out as Modi's demonetization plan for the Rupee.  ::)

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html)

Trump’s Order Blocks Immigrants at Airports, Stoking Fear Around Globe

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and NICHOLAS KULISHJAN. 28, 2017

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/29/us/29Doorclosed-1/29Doorclosed-1-master768.jpg)
Hameed Khalid Darweesh, center, after being released from detention at Kennedy Airport on Saturday. Credit Victor J. Blue for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s executive order on immigration quickly reverberated through the United States and across the globe on Saturday, slamming the border shut for an Iranian scientist headed to a lab in Boston, an Iraqi who had worked for a decade as an interpreter for the United States Army, and a Syrian refugee family headed to a new life in Ohio, among countless others.

Around the nation, security officers at major international gateways had new rules to follow, though the application of the order appeared uneven. Humanitarian organizations scrambled to cancel long-planned programs, delivering the bad news to families who were about to travel. Refugees who were on flights when the order was signed were detained at airports.

“We’ve gotten reports of people being detained all over the country,” said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project. “They’re literally pouring in by the minute.”

There were numerous reports of students attending American universities who were blocked from returning to the United States from visits abroad. One student said in a Twitter post that he would be unable to study at Yale. Another who attends the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was refused permission to board a plane. A Sudanese student at Stanford University was blocked for hours from returning to California.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Banned From U.S.: ‘You Need to Go Back to Your Country’ JAN. 28, 2017
    Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries JAN. 27, 2017
    NEWS ANALYSIS
    Fears That Trump’s Visa Ban Betrays Friends and Bolsters Enemies JAN. 27, 2017
    Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
    Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal JAN. 27, 2017
    Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous JAN. 28, 2017

Recent Comments
jnc 3 minutes ago

Disgusting!.....Nothing good can come from this ban. It is based purely in politics, racism, and religious persecution. These are not the...
Kate Craig 3 minutes ago

Be it known by all these countries that are banned from sending people to the states, our president is putting Americans first instead of...
Bill 3 minutes ago

Good for Trump. Shame on these anti-American losers protesting this vital step towards protecting our country. I'm just glad an overwhelming...

    See All Comments Write a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

Human rights groups reported that legal permanent residents of the United States who hold green cards were being stopped in foreign airports as they sought to return from funerals, vacations or study abroad.
Impacted by Trump’s order?

Are you affected by President Trump’s executive order on immigration — or know someone who is? If you have information, please contact us at immigration@nytimes.com.

The president’s order, enacted with the stroke of a pen at 4:42 on Friday afternoon, suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Department of Homeland Security said that the executive order also barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States. In a briefing for reporters on Saturday, White House officials said that green card holders from the seven affected countries who are outside the United States would need a case-by-case waiver to return to the United States.

Legal residents who have a green card and are currently in the United States should meet with a consular officer before leaving the country, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told reporters. Officials did not clarify the criteria that would qualify someone for a waiver from the president’s executive order, which says only that one can be granted when it is “in the national interest.”

But the week-old administration appeared to be implementing the order chaotically, with agencies and officials around the globe interpreting it in different ways.

The Stanford student, a legal permanent resident of the United States with a green card, was held at Kennedy International Airport in New York for about eight hours but was eventually allowed to fly to California, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokeswoman. Others who were detained appeared to be still in custody or sent back to their home countries.

White House aides claimed on Saturday that there had been talks with officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security over the past several weeks about carrying out the order. “Everyone who needed to know was informed,” one aide said.
Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kennedy Airport Detention

But that assertion was denied by multiple officials with knowledge of the interactions, including two officials at the State Department. Two of the officials said leaders of Customs and Border Protection and Citizenship and Immigration Services — the two agencies most directly affected by the order — and other agencies were on a telephone briefing on the new policy even as Mr. Trump signed it on Friday.

At least one case prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy Airport filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, the interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs.

“What I do for this country? They put the cuffs on,” Mr. Darweesh said. “You know how many soldiers I touch by this hand?”

The other man the lawyers are representing, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, remained in custody as his legal advocates sought his release.

Inside the airport, one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, asked a border agent, “Who is the person we need to talk to?”
Document: Motion for Class Certification in Refugee Detentions

“Call Mr. Trump,” said the agent, who declined to identify himself.

The White House said the restrictions would protect “the United States from foreign nationals entering from countries compromised by terrorism” and ensure “a more rigorous vetting process.” But critics condemned Mr. Trump over the immediate collateral damage imposed on people who, by all accounts, had no sinister intentions in trying to come to the United States.

Peaceful protests began forming Saturday afternoon at Kennedy Airport, where nine travelers had been detained upon arrival at Terminal 7 and two others at Terminal 4, an airport official said.
California Today

The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

The official said they were being held in a federal area of the airport, adding that such situations were playing out around the nation.

An official message to all American diplomatic posts around the world provided instructions about how to treat people from the countries affected: “Effective immediately, halt interviewing and cease issuance and printing” of visas to the United States.

Internationally, confusion turned to panic as travelers found themselves unable to board flights bound for the United States. In Dubai and Istanbul, airport and immigration officials turned passengers away at boarding gates and, in at least one case, ejected a family from a flight they had boarded.

Seyed Soheil Saeedi Saravi, a promising young Iranian scientist, had been scheduled to travel in the coming days to Boston, where he had been awarded a fellowship to study cardiovascular medicine at Harvard, according to Thomas Michel, the professor who was to supervise the research fellowship.
Got a confidential news tip?

The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists.

But Professor Michel said the visas for the student and his wife had been indefinitely suspended.

“This outstanding young scientist has enormous potential to make contributions that will improve our understanding of heart disease, and he has already been thoroughly vetted,” Professor Michel wrote to The New York Times.

Peter McPherson, the president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, which represents many of the biggest public colleges in the country, said he was “deeply concerned” about the new policy. He said it was “causing significant disruption and hardship” for students, researchers, faculty and staff members.

A Syrian family of six who have been living in a Turkish refugee camp since fleeing their home in 2014 had been scheduled to arrive in Cleveland on Tuesday, according to a report in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Instead, the family’s trip has been called off.

Danielle Drake, a community relations manager at US Together, a refugee resettlement agency, told the newspaper that Mr. Trump’s ban reminded her of when the United States turned away Jewish refugees during World War II. “All those times that people said, ‘Never again,’ well, we’re doing it again,” she said.

On Twitter, Daniel W. Drezner, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., posted an angry message for Mr. Trump after the executive order stopped the arrival of a Syrian family his synagogue had sponsored.

In an interview on Friday night on “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC, he expressed sorrow for the fate of the family and apologized for cursing in his Twitter message.
Photo
The wife of an Iraqi citizen who was detained at Kennedy Airport. She was at her sister’s home in Houston on Saturday. Credit Michael Stravato for The New York Times

“I can’t quite describe the degree of anger that I felt as a reaction to this, which then caused me to curse at the president on social media,” he said, adding, “which is probably something I should not do as a general rule.”

It was unclear how many refugees and other immigrants were being held nationwide in relation to the executive order.

A Christian family of six from Syria said in an email to Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, that they were being detained at Philadelphia International Airport on Saturday morning despite having legal paperwork, green cards and visas that had been approved.

In the case of the two Iraqis held at Kennedy Airport, the legal filings by his lawyers say that Mr. Darweesh was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Trump was sworn in as president. Mr. Darweesh worked with the Americans in Iraq in a variety of jobs — as an engineer, a contractor and an interpreter for the Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad and Mosul starting shortly after the invasion of Iraq on April 1, 2003.

A husband and father of three, he arrived at Kennedy Airport with his family. Mr. Darweesh’s wife and children made it through passport control and customs, but agents of Customs and Border Protection detained him.

In Istanbul, during a stopover on Saturday, passengers reported that security officers had entered a plane after everyone had boarded and ordered a young Iranian woman and her family to leave the aircraft.

Iranian green card holders who live in the United States were blindsided by the decree while on vacation in Iran, finding themselves in a legal limbo and unsure whether they would be able to return to America.

“How do I get back home now?” said Daria Zeynalia, a green card holder who was visiting family in Iran. He had rented a house and leased a car, and would be eligible for citizenship in November. “What about my job? If I can’t go back soon, I’ll lose everything.”

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Nicholas Kulish from New York. Reporting was contributed by Mark Mazzetti from Washington, Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran, Manny Fernandez from Houston, and Russell Goldman, Stephanie Saul and Alan Feuer from New York.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 28, 2017, 06:44:42 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/soon-there-could-be-only-49-states-america (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/soon-there-could-be-only-49-states-america)
Soon There Could Be Only 49 States In America
Jan 28, 2017
Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org, (http://theantimedia.org/49-states-america-california-succession/)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/01/23/20170128_calexit.jpg)

Activists in California have just taken an integral step that could leave America with only 49 states in the near future. Yes California, a pro-secession organization, received approval Thursday to begin collecting signatures from residents to put “Calexit” on the ballot for a 2019 special election.

(http://cdn.theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/states-49-calexit-1.jpg)

Yes California has been working toward secession for some time (http://www.yescalifornia.org/blog?page=2), but with President Donald Trump’s election last year, their efforts gained momentum as frustrated residents questioned their willingness to bow down to a president they don’t support. According to a poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-california-secession-idUSKBN1572KB) conducted by Reuters/Ipsos this month, nearly one in three supports secession — a sharp uptick from a similar survey conducted in 2014. With secession becoming a viable alternative, it’s possible that support may continue to grow.

Quote
We'll just take our avocados and legal weed and go#CalExit (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CalExit?src=hash) #CalifrEXIT (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CalifrEXIT?src=hash)
— beea ???? (@LeasLame) November 9, 2016 (https://twitter.com/LeasLame/status/796274680684363776)

The organization submitted (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html) their ballot proposal to California’s state government in November, and on Thursday, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla gave them the green light (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html) to begin collecting signatures. They need (http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316461-supporters-of-calexit-movement-can-begin-collecting-signatures-to) 585,407 people to sign their petition by July 25. If they succeed, the referendum will make it onto the 2018 ballot. If it passes, the state will hold a special election the following year. The Sacramento Bee reports (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article129047749.html):

Quote
The proposed measure would strike language from the California Constitution defining the state as ‘an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.’ If it passed, there would be a statewide special election in March 2019 to ask voters if they want California to become an independent country.”

Many Americans often joke about California leaving the union, highlighting how wildly different residents of the Golden State are from those of America’s heartland. Indeed, Yes California appears to agree.

Quote
America already hates California, and America votes on emotions,” Marcus Ruiz Evans, one of the group’s founders, told (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-coming-to-a-clipboard-near-you-1485483444-htmlstory.html) the Los Angeles Times. “I think we’d have the votes today if we held it.”
In a recent post on their website announcing their progress, they wrote (http://www.yescalifornia.org/):

Quote
“In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.

It’s understandable why secession has become a proposed solution considering California has long struggled with many systemic problems. As Yes California points out:

Quote
Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.

Though Yes California points out practical reasons for secession, they also argue the underlying justification for their movement from a philosophical standpoint:

Quote
However, this independence referendum is about more than California subsidizing (http://www.yescalifornia.org/what_america_costs_california) other states of this country,” they write. “It is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law.

Further:
Quote
It is about California taking its place in the world, standing as an equal among nations. We believe in two fundamental truths: (1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as just a U.S. state.”

California has the sixth largest economy (http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/26/kevin-de-leon/does-california-really-have-sixth-largest-economy-/) in the world, bolstered by the film industry, Silicon Valley, agriculture, and the state’s biggest cash crop (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/california-six-largest-cash-crops-marijuana-monster) — cannabis — which voters legalized in November.

While the practical and philosophical reasons for secession are compelling, it’s doubtful many residents are looking beyond President Donald Trump. California leans heavily to the left, and Democrats hold a supermajority (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-democrats-nab-a-supermajority-after-1480383488-htmlstory.html) in both houses of the state legislature. California was largely responsible (http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popular-vote-results-2016-clinton-trump-2012-2008-vs-electoral-college-california-uncounted-ballots-new-york-update-totals-final/) for Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory.
Further, though Yes California stresses the importance of voluntary association, it’s doubtful an independent California government would ask taxpayers what programs they’d like to fund. Ultimately, though California as a country would certainly be beneficial for decentralization and localization efforts, it would operate as a government and, as such, force Californians to participate.

Nevertheless, the movement reflects undeniable divisions within the United States, especially in the era of Donald Trump. Other states are also eyeing secession, including Texas, Washington, and Oregon.

As Anti-Media observed (http://theantimedia.org/trump-presidency-cause-secession/) shortly after the election:
Quote
People are rioting and protesting over Trump’s win throughout California (http://abc7.com/news/anti-trump-protests-form-across-state-after-election-results/1597889/) but celebrating in Alabama (http://whnt.com/2016/11/09/toomers-corner-rolled-in-celebration-of-trump-win/), and against the backdrop of an ever-encroaching federal government, it appears these differences are growing difficult to reconcile.”



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/california-threatens-cut-funds-washington (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/california-threatens-cut-funds-washington)
California Threatens To Cut Off Funds To Washington
Tyler Durden
Jan 28, 2017

With secession threats looming, the state of California is reportedly studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities.

With California counties among the Top 10 who stand to lose tax-payer funding for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants...

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/01/23/20170125_sanctuary_0.png)

KPIX5 reports that officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

    “California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news.

    “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/01/23/20170128_donor.jpg)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 28, 2017, 07:04:09 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/soon-there-could-be-only-49-states-america (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/soon-there-could-be-only-49-states-america)
Soon There Could Be Only 49 States In America


Will they still get water from Lake Mead after they secede?

Will they still use Dollars for money after they secede or print their own IOUs?

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 28, 2017, 07:29:01 PM
Quote
Will they still get water from Lake Mead after they secede?

Will they still use Dollars for money after they secede or print their own IOUs?

Remind me which State has Lake Mead, and who they send the water to at the moment, and how much they get paid for it.

I should imagine they would print their own, but both would be used for things, with a conversion rate between the two.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 28, 2017, 07:47:03 PM
Quote
Will they still get water from Lake Mead after they secede?

Will they still use Dollars for money after they secede or print their own IOUs?

Remind me which State has Lake Mead, and who they send the water to at the moment, and how much they get paid for it.

I should imagine they would print their own, but both would be used for things, with a conversion rate between the two.


Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam are in Nevada.

Both the water and electricity are apportioned out to several western state besides CA  & NV, including UT, NM, AZ & CO.  Currently contractually as I understand it, CA has first dibs on this water and power.  However, if they pulled out of the Federal Union, those contracts would be null & void.

They would then have to get NV to accept their new CA IOUs to ship water to them,  AZ would still have access to Dollars though and could outbid them for the water.  CA money would rapidly depreciate in value and CA Farmers would get no water.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 28, 2017, 09:45:51 PM
Why would CA Dollars devalue?  The water that they buy for US Dollars gets turned into marijuana, wine, milk and almonds, and sold for CA Dollars, creating more of a demand for CA Dollars than for US Dollars - Man cannot live by water alone.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 28, 2017, 10:35:18 PM
Quote
Will they still get water from Lake Mead after they secede?

Will they still use Dollars for money after they secede or print their own IOUs?

Remind me which State has Lake Mead, and who they send the water to at the moment, and how much they get paid for it.

I should imagine they would print their own, but both would be used for things, with a conversion rate between the two.


Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam are in Nevada.

Both the water and electricity are apportioned out to several western state besides CA  & NV, including UT, NM, AZ & CO.  Currently contractually as I understand it, CA has first dibs on this water and power.  However, if they pulled out of the Federal Union, those contracts would be null & void.

They would then have to get NV to accept their new CA IOUs to ship water to them,  AZ would still have access to Dollars though and could outbid them for the water.  CA money would rapidly depreciate in value and CA Farmers would get no water.

RE

RE, You are big on Lake Mead.  Another Dam you could look at is the Garrison Reservoir which has plenty of water.  Perhaps rain belts are moving north with climate change.  The Garrison Dam was built in the fifties but the overflow spillway was never used until 2011.  Wherever you get your Lake Mead water level data should also have data on the Garrison reservoir.  The Oahe Dam water level would also be interesting to look at.  The different latitudes could show different patterns.  The sun belt gets cold and wet but the northern Great Plains could be getting wetter. 

The only reason mention of these other dams belongs in the Trumpty thread is to introduce the question.  Will Trumpty use these dams as weapons?  Check out my Bulletin Board for the explanation of how he could.  http://chasingthesquirrel.com/ (http://chasingthesquirrel.com/)
Title: Judge blocks deportations as Trump order sparks global outrage
Post by: RE on January 29, 2017, 03:17:36 AM
This one is heating up nicely.

RE

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugees-lawsuit-iraq-visas-234305 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugees-lawsuit-iraq-visas-234305)

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/d6c9a11/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd5%2F66%2Fb9379a934250855ef70c44ad8879%2F13-donald-trump-34-gty-1160.jpg)
President Donald Trump’s executive order does allow for some exemptions at the discretion of administration officials, including “when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.” | Getty

Judge blocks deportations as Trump order sparks global outrage


White House faces legal challenges over executive order after travelers with visas to enter the U.S. were detained.

By Seung Min Kim, Eliza Shapiro and Josh Gerstein

01/28/17 11:19 AM EST

Updated 01/28/17 11:03 PM EST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

NEW YORK—A judge has blocked the federal government from deporting citizens of seven countries who were detained at U.S. airports over the past day or so as a result of an executive order President Donald Trump issued Friday.

Advocates said 100-200 travelers from those Muslim-majority countries were being held at various airports around the U.S. as a result of Trump’s order, which was billed as an anti-terrorism measure. The detentions sparked protests outside many international airports, including John F. Kennedy Airport in New York and Dulles Airport outside Washington.

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly issued her injunction over the government’s objection during an emergency hearing Saturday night as several hundred people opposed to Trump's order chanted and milled about outside the Brooklyn, N.Y., federal courthouse.

During the brief court session, the judge said it was difficult to see the harm in allowing the newly arrived immigrants to stay since they were being routinely admitted just a couple of days ago.

"If they had come in two days ago, we wouldn't be here, am I right? ... These are all people who have been through a vetting process," the judge said.

"Explain to me how these petitioners won't suffer irreparable damage if I don't grant this stay?" Donnelly asked.
170128-JFK-airport-protest-GettyImages-632921536.jpg

White House
Trump's curbs on visas and refugees could affect Americans

By Nahal Toosi

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Riley complained that the court proceeding was unduly rushed. "This has unfolded with such speed, we haven't had an opportunity to address any of the important legal issues," Riley said.

However, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelernt said the immigrants affected were essentially the victims of bad timing that caused them to be caught in limbo just as Trump's order was being issued.

"These people were caught in transit," Gelernt said. "The government is putting someone back on a plane to Syria now."

Donnelly, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said she was freezing the status quo by blocking the deportations.

"The whole point of this hearing is to preserve the status quo. I don't think it's unduly burdensome to identify people we are talking about here," the judge declared. "Nobody is to be removed in this class."

The White House had no immediate comment on the legal setback for one of the new president's signature policy moves. Justice Department spokespeople did not immediately indicate whether an appeal was planned.

Donnelly's order does not appear to interfere with most of Trump's directive, since the judge only moved to protect a limited number of individuals who were already on or were about to board flights to the U.S. when Trump signed his measure. Now, such travelers will likely be blocked from boarding flights in the first place.

Two other judges also stepped into the legal fray over the implementation of Trump’s executive order Saturday night. A federal judge in Alexandria, Va., issued an order barring the deportation of all green card holders being detained at Dulles Airport for 7 days. Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order also required that Customs and Border Protection grant lawyers access to those individuals.

"Department of Homeland Security officials are refusing to allow lawyers to talk with the detained people, who are legal permanent residents, even though the judge’s order requires the government to permit lawyer access,” one of the attorneys involved, Andrew Pincus, said later Saturday night.

In addition, a federal judge in Seattle blocked the deportation of two immigrants from the airport there until a hearing set for Friday.

The legal battle is now expected to move to a series of individual cases filed in New York, Chicago and elsewhere Saturday, where immigrants will be seeking to be released from detention to travel or settle in the U.S.
trump_sign_order_gty.jpg

Trump bars Syrian refugees, halts entry of citizens from some Muslim states

By Nahal Toosi

Donnelly acted on a petition filed early Saturday, seeking to release Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi from detention at JFK Airport. The case was filed by the ACLU, the International Refugee Assistance Project the National Immigration Law Center and a Yale Law School legal clinic.

Darweesh was released early Saturday afternoon, according to aides to New York Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and Nydia Velazquez, who went to JFK to try and free the men. Alshawi was released Saturday night, said a Nadler spokesman who indicated earlier that at least 10 others had been detained at the airport.

"We are pleased to announce that Hameed Khalid Darweesh has been released and can now be reunited with his family," the two lawmakers said in a statement earlier Saturday. “This should not happen in America. We shouldn’t have to demand the release of refugees one by one. We must fight this executive order in the streets, in the courts, anywhere, anytime. We must resist. We must fight. We must keep working to keep America the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Pandemonium over Trump's new executive order erupted at airports nationwide on Saturday, with reports of dozens of immigrants and travelers stranded or turned back in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York and Dallas as demonstrators flooded airports to denounce Trump's directive. One Syrian Christian family who had been working with Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) were detained at Philadelphia International Airport and then subsequently forced to leave, according to the congressman.

During a press conference at Dulles International Airport, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said one family had been detained as he slammed Trump's order as one that will "breed hatred toward Americans around the globe." Fifty people were being held at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, according to local reports.
170128-Airport-portest-GettyImages-632957578.jpg

Protesters rally at a demonstration against the new ban on immigration issued by President Donald Trump at Logan International Airport in Boston on Jan. 28. | Getty

But at the White House, Trump said his order was being carried out just as he planned.

“It’s not a Muslim ban, but we were totally prepared," Trump said. "It’s working out very nicely. You see it at the airports, you see it all over.”

Customs and Border Protection agents who detained the men at JFK are pointing to Trump’s executive order, telling the immigrants’ attorneys: “Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,” according to the 20-page lawsuit. which was also filed by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Darweesh, now 53, worked on behalf of the U.S. military in Iraq for a decade as an interpreter and electrical engineer, earning him a so-called “special immigrant visa” that are allotted to Iraqi nationals who aided the U.S. government during the Iraq War and now face threats staying there. Darweesh applied for the visa in Oct. 1, 2014, which was issued on Jan. 20, the same day Trump was inaugurated.

And Alshawi, 33, was granted a visa Jan. 11 to join his wife and son, who have already been resettled as refugees in Houston.

The lawsuit argues that the detention of two men is “part of a widespread pattern applied to many refugees and arriving aliens detained after the issuance of” Trump’s executive order on Friday.

On a call with reporters Saturday, Abed Ayoub, legal and policy director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said CBP officials had told advocates dozens of people were being held at JFK as a result of the executive order.

He also cited reports of people being held at airports in Atlanta, Detroit, Houston and Washington, D.C.

“We’re already hearing about hundreds of people being detained at airports,” said Marielena Hincapie, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “It got issued late on a Friday afternoon, it was not released to the public for several hours and then here on a Friday night over the weekend, we’re dealing with hundreds of people who have been arriving with no guidance to Border Patrol personnel.”

Trump’s far-reaching executive order does allow for some exemptions at the discretion of administration officials, including “when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.” But advocates such as Hincapie say the messy rollout of Trump’s controversial directive is triggering confusion and chaos at airports nationwide, since border patrol officers have received little guidance on how to implement the order.

“They failed to inform airports about what to do,” Hincapie said.
13_donald_trump_59_gty_1160.jpg

Trump signs 3 executive actions on NSC, lobbying and ISIS

By Tara Palmeri

Darweesh’s wife and three children were also granted visas and traveled with him, but were not detained. They are supposed to resettle in Charlotte, N.C. And neither men had been allowed to contact their lawyers, the lawsuit says.

Iraq is one of seven countries whose citizens, under Trump’s executive order released late Friday, are barred from entering the United States for 90 days, along with Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The lawsuit, which alleges violation of Fifth Amendment rights for Darweesh and Alshawi, calls for the two men to be released and also asks a judge to issue an injunction asking the government not to detain any person just on the basis of Trump’s executive order. Lawyers are asking to broaden the lawsuit to a larger class of people who are facing similar issues trying to enter the United States.

“Each of these similarly situated individuals has been detained and questioned by CBP officials, denied entry to the United States, and subject to the threat of return to the country from which their travel originated,” the lawsuit claimed.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, as well as the White House, Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of New York.

Ted Hesson and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
Title: Kochs vs Trump: Round 1
Post by: RE on January 29, 2017, 06:38:19 PM
Quote
“The reason we’re optimistic ... is really Mike Pence,” said Doug Deason, a prominent Trump supporter and major Koch donor. “If you think Cheney had power in Bush White House, just watch and see what happens with Mike Pence.”

I smell an Impeachment and installation of Mike Pence as POTUS.

RE


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kochs-condemn-trump-immigration-crackdown/2017/01/29/b68e5f2e-e67c-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.ff4a7fceafc0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kochs-condemn-trump-immigration-crackdown/2017/01/29/b68e5f2e-e67c-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.ff4a7fceafc0)

Kochs condemn Trump’s immigration crackdown
By Steve Peoples | AP January 29 at 6:59 PM

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Charles Koch first likened candidate Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigrants to something Adolf Hitler would have done in Nazi Germany.

The billionaire industrialist and his chief lieutenants offered a more delicate response this weekend when asked about President Trump’s plan to block immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. They described Trump’s plan as “the wrong approach” that violated its dedication to “free and open societies.”

The criticism comes as the Koch network, among the most powerful conservative groups in the nation, works to strike a delicate balance in the early days of the new administration. The Kochs refused to support Trump’s candidacy last fall, but they now see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to influence the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress.

Their optimism is fueled by strong relationships inside the administration, despite their vow to oppose Trump’s policies if they deviate from the Koch brothers’ conservative priorities.

Trump critics were easy to find at the California desert resort this weekend, where attendance at a semi-annual conference was limited to the 550 people who donate at least $100,000 each year to the various conservative political and policy groups backed by Charles and David Koch.

The critics included Charles Koch himself, although the conservative patriarch did not mention Trump by name Sunday as he warned that the nation is facing a moment of “tremendous danger.” He said the nation could “go the authoritarian route ... or we can move toward a free and open society. So this is our opportunity.”

Still, the Koch network says it’s confident about its ability to shape the direction of the Trump administration’s policies from the inside.

“Many former network staffers that are in the White House now remain good friends of ours. So we’re in constant contact with them,” said Koch spokesman James Davis. “Conversations have been open and continue to be.”

There is perhaps no bigger Koch ally than Vice President Mike Pence, whose staff and ideology has been in close alignment with the Kochs for years.

Charles Koch spoke directly with the vice president on the phone days before his inauguration as Pence considered hiring a Koch communications staffer, Stephen Ford, to serve as his chief speechwriter. Ford was soon hired, along with former Koch chief Marc Short, who now serves as the White House legislative director.

“The reason we’re optimistic ... is really Mike Pence,” said Doug Deason, a prominent Trump supporter and major Koch donor. “If you think Cheney had power in Bush White House, just watch and see what happens with Mike Pence.”

Several reporters, including one from The Associated Press, were invited to attend the weekend conference. As a condition of attending, photographers were not allowed and reporters were not permitted to identify any donors without their permission.

Koch and his powerful allies insist they will challenge Trump when his policies don’t align with their conservative vision.

The network plans to spend between $300 million and $400 million over the next two years to shape policy and politics, much of it devoted to its nationwide grassroots network. While there has been much talk of Trump allies creating an outside group to help promote his agenda, the Koch network’s capacity to communicate directly with voters on the ground in key states has no political rival.

The Koch’s “secret sauce,” Holden says, is “the accountability play.”

“We’re principled. And if we can’t get comfortable with the policies that are in place, then we’re not going to support them. But if we can we will support them, regardless of who’s in office,” he said.

Like Trump, the Kochs favor efforts to cut government regulation and replace the federal health-care system. They do not share the president’s plans for a massive infrastructure spending or his crackdown on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

“The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive,” network co-chair Brian Hooks said Sunday.

“Our country has benefited tremendously from a history of welcoming people from all cultures and backgrounds,” he said. “This is a hallmark of free and open societies.”
Title: Re: Kochs vs Trump: Round 1
Post by: K-Dog on January 29, 2017, 07:14:56 PM
Quote
“The reason we’re optimistic ... is really Mike Pence,” said Doug Deason, a prominent Trump supporter and major Koch donor. “If you think Cheney had power in Bush White House, just watch and see what happens with Mike Pence.”

I smell an Impeachment and installation of Mike Pence as POTUS.

RE


From Wikipaedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Deason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Deason)

Quote
Darwin Deason is an American businessman and political donor.
Career

Deason grew up on a farm near Rogers, Arkansas.[1] He moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma after graduating from high school, and he got a job at Gulf Oil.[1] Deason got a job for a data processing company, and eventually took control of a struggling Dallas company that he renamed MTech.[2] After selling MTech, Deason founded Affiliated Computer Services in 1988.[2] ACS became one of the first companies to outsource office work to places outside of the United States.[1] The company went public in 1994.[1] Deason retired as CEO of the company in 1999, but remained chairman.[1]

In 2007, Deason attempted to buy control of ACS with the help of Cerberus Capital Management, but the deal collapsed and members of the A.C.S. board resigned in protest.[3] In 2009, Deason negotiated a deal to sell A.C.S. to Xerox.[3][4] Shareholders sued Deason due to the premium that Deason received in the deal, but the sale went through in 2010.[2]
Political activity
Deason and his family donated $250,000 to support Rick Perry's 2012 presidential candidacy.[5] Deason also donated $5 million to support Perry's 2016 presidential candidacy.[6] After Perry dropped out of the race, Deason asked for his money back.[6] Deason's son, Doug Deason is a member of the Koch Brothers political network.[7] Deason and his family donated $1 million to support Donald Trump's 2016 presidential candiacy.

By a 'free and open society' It appears the Koch brothers want the country free of Americans and inhabited by the cheapest workers they can bring over.
Title: Re: Kochs vs Trump: Round 1
Post by: RE on January 29, 2017, 07:30:33 PM
By a 'free and open society' It appears the Koch brothers want the country free of Americans and inhabited by the cheapest workers they can bring over.

A country FREE for Billionaires to Rape & Pillage!

They're just pissed off The Donald is currently winning the Billionaire vs Billionaire war and his companies are getting the best perks.

(http://img05.deviantart.net/af57/i/2006/054/0/4/spy_vs_spy_by_ragdollnamedgary.png)

RE
Title: Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order
Post by: RE on January 29, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Trumpty Dumpty is trying to rule by Fiat, the same way a CEO of a company would.  He expects all his Orders will be followed without question.  Da Goobermint doesn't quite work that way.

Problem of course is all the problems within his own party he is creating.  Even Repugnants are not happy with how he pulled this stunt.

Now he is engaging in Twitshit Napalm contests with guys like John McCain and Mitch McConell.  The Koch Borthers are mad at him too!  :o

If he keeps this up, he'll be LUCKY to just get Impeached!

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0)

Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order

By PETER BAKERJAN. 29, 2017

Priebus Defends Immigration Ban

Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that President Trump’s executive order could potentially be expanded to include more than seven countries. By REUTERS. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency. Watch in Times Video »

    embed

WASHINGTON — Travelers were stranded around the world, protests escalated in the United States and anxiety rose within President Trump’s party on Sunday as his order closing the nation to refugees and people from certain predominantly Muslim countries provoked a crisis just days into his administration.

The White House pulled back on part of Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on visitors from seven countries by saying that it would not apply to those with green cards granting them permanent residence in the United States. By the end of the day, the Department of Homeland Security formally issued an order declaring legal residents exempt from the order.

But the recalibration did little to reassure critics at home or abroad who saw the president’s order as a retreat from traditional American values. European leaders denounced the order, and some Republican lawmakers called on Mr. Trump to back down. It was not clear how many were still being detained at American airports or how many others were now blocked from getting on airplanes in the first place.

More than any of the myriad moves Mr. Trump has made in his frenetic opening days in office, the immigration order has quickly come to define his emerging presidency as one driven by a desire for decisive action even at the expense of deliberate process or coalition building. It has thrust the nine-day-old administration into its first constitutional conflict, as multiple courts have intervened to block aspects of the order, and into its broadest diplomatic incident, with overseas allies objecting.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Growing Number of G.O.P. Lawmakers Criticize Trump’s Refugee Policy JAN. 29, 2017
    Rulings on Trump’s Immigration Order Are First Step on a Long Legal Path JAN. 29, 2017
    Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Refugees JAN. 29, 2017
    Reince Priebus Defends Holocaust Statement That Failed to Mention Jews JAN. 29, 2017

Recent Comments
Peter 5 minutes ago

Trump is acting lawlessly. and should accordingly be impeached.Resistance is going to be crucial over the next four years. What will you...
Donna 5 minutes ago

And amid all the noise over the travel ban, no one is talking about the U.S. commando killed during the president's first counter terrorism...
CMS 5 minutes ago

As we see, Trump is of the mindset that spins very tangled webs solely for the sheer entertainment of watching people suddenly become...

    See All Comments Write a comment

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The White House was left to defend what seemed to many government veterans like a slapdash process. Aides to Mr. Trump insisted they had consulted for weeks with relevant officials, but the head of the customs and border service in the Obama administration, who resigned on inauguration day, said the incoming president’s team never talked with him about it.

White House officials blamed what they portrayed as a hyperventilating news media for the confusion and said the order had been successfully carried out. Only about 109 out of 325,000 travelers entering the United States over 24 hours were detained, they said, and as of Sunday afternoon, all 170 legal permanent residents who applied for a waiver were granted one. That did not count the many others who remain overseas now unable to travel.

Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said Mr. Trump simply did what he had promised on the campaign trail and would not gamble with American lives. “We’re not willing to be wrong on this subject,” he said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “President Trump is not willing to take chances on this subject.”

The order bars entry to refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days and from Syria indefinitely. It blocks any visitors for 90 days from seven designated countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The Department of Homeland Security initially said the order would bar green card holders from those seven countries from returning to the United States.

With thousands of protesters chanting outside his White House windows and thronging the streets of Washington and other cities, Mr. Trump late on Sunday defended his order. “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” he said in a written statement. “This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

He noted that the seven countries were identified by former President Barack Obama’s administration as sources of terrorism and that his order did not affect citizens from dozens of other predominantly Muslim countries. “We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” he said.

Mr. Trump expressed sympathy for victims of the long-running civil war in Syria. “I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria,” he said. “My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as president, I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

While Mr. Trump denied that his action focused on religion, the first iteration of his plan during his presidential campaign was framed as a temporary ban on all Muslim visitors.

As late as Sunday morning, he made clear that his concern was for Christian refugees, and part of his order gives preferential treatment to Christians who try to enter the United States from majority-Muslim nations.

In a Twitter post on Sunday morning, Mr. Trump deplored the killing of Christians in the Middle East without noting the killings of Muslims, who have been killed in vastly greater numbers in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.

“Christians in the Middle East have been executed in large numbers,” he wrote. “We cannot allow this horror to continue!”

His order, however, resulted in a second day of uncertainty at American airports. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was investigating reports that officials were not complying with court orders in New York, Boston, Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago.

New York’s attorney general sent a letter to federal authorities demanding a list of all individuals detained at Kennedy International Airport. The Department of Homeland Security said Sunday evening that it was “in compliance with judicial orders.”

Still, at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, even the arrival of four Democratic members of Congress did not prompt customs officers to acknowledge whether they were holding anyone or provide lawyers access to anyone detained.
First Draft

Every weekday, get political news and analysis from the staff of The New York Times.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

The lawmakers arrived after 3 p.m. and were rebuffed by police officers when they tried to enter the Customs and Border Protection offices at the airport. Representative Gerry Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, said he was told to call the main office of the agency in Washington.

His staff got a legislative liaison from the customs service on the phone, and “they said we’ll put you in touch with the deputy commissioner,” according to Mr. Connolly.

“I said that’s not acceptable,” he said. “We want to talk to the person in charge of operations at Dulles Airport. That’s where the problem is, and that’s where the federal judicial ruling is applicable.”

The clash over the order provoked emotional responses. At a news conference, Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader from New York, choked up as he vowed to “claw, scrap and fight with every fiber of my being until these orders are overturned.”

The mayors of Dallas, Chicago and Boston spoke out as well. In Dallas, Mayor Mike Rawlings personally offered regrets to four released detainees at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. “We have wished them welcome, and we have apologized from the depths of our heart,” he said.

The order roiled relations with America’s traditional allies in Europe and the Middle East. The spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who spoke with Mr. Trump by telephone on Saturday, said she reminded him of the obligation of the United States to take refugees under the Geneva Conventions.

Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain, who met with Mr. Trump in Washington on Friday and has sought to forge a friendship with him, initially declined to comment on the policy on Sunday when pressed by reporters during a stop in Turkey.

But under pressure from opposition politicians, her spokesman later said the British government did “not agree with this kind of approach.”

The matter was especially sensitive in Muslim countries, and Mr. Trump spoke by telephone on Sunday with King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi. White House statements on the calls said they discussed the fight against terrorism but did not say whether they discussed the immigration order, which did not include their countries.

In Washington, protesters gathered by the thousands outside Mr. Trump’s front lawn to denounce his order and show solidarity with Muslim Americans.

“Shame,” they chanted, hoisting homemade signs toward the executive mansion, where Mr. Trump was scheduled to host a private screening of the movie “Finding Dory.”

“No hate, no fear,” they added later. “Refugees are welcome here.”

Security fencing and reviewing stands still in place from inauguration day prevented the crowd from getting more than a couple hundred yards away from the building, but did not stop crowds from swelling through the afternoon, when protesters departed to march to Capitol Hill.

Some Republicans grew increasingly alarmed by the backlash to the order. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,” Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a statement. “That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

Some conservative donors also criticized the decision. Officials with the political network overseen by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire conservative activists, released a statement on Sunday criticizing Mr. Trump’s handling of the issue.

“We believe it is possible to keep Americans safe without excluding people who wish to come here to contribute and pursue a better life for their families,” said Brian Hooks, co-chairman of the Kochs’ donor network. “The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive.”

Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the order was “poorly implemented” and urged the president to “make appropriate revisions.” Other Republicans were more circumspect. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, said the issue would be decided by the courts.

Mr. Trump fired back at Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham on Twitter. “They are sadly weak on immigration,” he wrote. “Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.”

Reporting was contributed by Michael D. Shear, Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Fandos, Ron Nixon, Charlie Savage and Eric Lipton from Washington, Liam Stack from New York, Alison Smale from Berlin, Steven Erlanger from London, and Alissa J. Rubin from Paris.
Title: Re: Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order
Post by: K-Dog on January 30, 2017, 12:34:29 AM
Trumpty Dumpty is trying to rule by Fiat, the same way a CEO of a company would.  He expects all his Orders will be followed without question.  Da Goobermint doesn't quite work that way.

Problem of course is all the problems within his own party he is creating.  Even Repugnants are not happy with how he pulled this stunt.

Now he is engaging in Twitshit Napalm contests with guys like John McCain and Mitch McConell.  The Koch Borthers are mad at him too!  :o

If he keeps this up, he'll be LUCKY to just get Impeached!

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0)

Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order

'
'
'


Quote
If he keeps this up, he'll be LUCKY to just get Impeached!

If things keep going this way it is only a matter of time before Trump will be needing the services of Winston Wolf.

http://www.youtube.com/v/wWmRTjLRMfU

Title: Re: Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 01:56:17 AM

If things keep going this way it is only a matter of time before Trump will be needing the services of Winston Wolf.


Yes, every day it looks more like a bad gangster movie. lol.

Harvey Keitel was great in that part.

RE
Title: Trump Travel Ban
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 04:27:28 AM
In other Newz, Donald Trump has been Banned from travel anywhere outside the FSoA.  176 Nations in the United Nations have agreed to ban Trump Travel to their countries.

In a Tweet this morning, Trump remarked that this was unfair and discriminatory.  Further Tweets from Trump indicated that the entire Brit population is composed of Homosexual Twits who never grabbed a pussy in their lives.

In a show of support for Trump, Angela Merkel, Marine LePen and Her Majesty the Queen of England agreed to have their pussies grabbed by The Donald.

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/europe/uk-petition-president-trump-ban-trnd/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/europe/uk-petition-president-trump-ban-trnd/)

Travel ban: UK petition to stop Trump state visit hits 1 million

By Emanuella Grinberg, CNN

Updated 5:19 AM ET, Mon January 30, 2017

(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170130101734-uk-petition-trump-ban-exlarge-169.jpg)
A petition to stop Donald Trump from making a UK state visit hit more than 1 million signatures Monday.

(CNN)For weeks, British lawyer Graham Guest's petition to prevent US President Donald Trump from shaking Her Majesty's hand pretty much lay dormant. But now more than a million people have signed it, and that number is rising fast.
The petition on the UK Government and Parliament website had earned just 372 signatures since the end of November, Guest said, but by 10 am on Monday, that number soared.
Then, news spread of President Trump's executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries and halting refugee resettlement.

According to the rules, any petition with 100,000 signatures or more automatically qualifies it for consideration to be debated in Parliament, though there are no guarantees.

The Leeds resident has no explanation for how it took off.
"Maybe Trump's travel ban has angered people and they want him to know what it's like to be banned from a country," he wrote to CNN.
British diplomats condemned the order. Under intense pressure to take a position, Prime Minister Theresa May conceded Sunday "we do not agree with this kind of approach" while saying it was a matter for the US to decide on its own.
Guest said he had no specific issue or policy position in mind when he started the petition. It was just Trump the man, really.
The petition says a state visit from the new US president would "cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen."
"Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales. Therefore during the term of his presidency Donald Trump should not be invited to the United Kingdom for an official State Visit," the petition states.
The UK Government and Parliament lets British citizens and UK residents create actions for possible review.
Will Guest attend the hearing if it pans out? "Absolutely!"
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread: Here come the LAWYERS!
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 04:50:08 AM
Along with a Scientist March on Washington, it looks like we may get a Lawyer March on Washington too!

This is going to be a great boon for the Legal Industry!  Of course, the Lawyers will be doing the work Pro Bono and not getting paid, but who needs money anyhow?

It's hard to imagine how many lawsuits will get filed on this one.  :o

If I could only get ONE of these Lawyers to take my SS case I would be happy.  ::)

RE

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/dulles-trump-muslim-immigration-order/514931/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/dulles-trump-muslim-immigration-order/514931/)

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/01/RTSXYQP/lead_960.jpg?1485770671)

Courts Stay Trump's Order Targeting Muslims, but Confusion Reigns

At Dulles International Airport on Sunday, lawyers and activists feared federal officials were ignoring court decisions staying the president’s executive order restricting travel from several mostly Muslim nations.
Protesters at Dulles International Airport on Sunday, January 29 2017. Mike Theiler / Reuters

    Matt Ford 5:04 AM ET Politics

    Share Tweet

    Text Size

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

What the lawyers and protesters who gathered at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C., on Sunday night didn’t know about the impact of President Trump’s executive order vastly outweighed what they knew. But they knew they had to do something.
Latest from Politics

An Evangelical Christian Defends Trump’s First Week in Office

Both groups arrived at the airport on Saturday knowing that people had been detained when the executive order, which restricts entry to the U.S. from several mostly Muslim nations, suddenly went into effect. But with no clear answers on whether Customs and Border Protection officials at the airport were following federal court orders temporarily blocking some of the restrictions, uncertainty reigned on Sunday. Even the number of people who were being detained inside Dulles, if any, was a mystery.

“We have zero idea,” said Mirriam Seddiq, a criminal-justice and immigration attorney from Maryland who was among the assembled lawyers’ de facto leaders. “We have none. Zero, zilch, no idea.”

Nor was anyone at the airport forthcoming. The police officers who stood guard over the thin hallway leading to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office said they didn’t know, and that they probably wouldn’t be allowed to tell anyone if they did. Airline employees at ticket counters would not say if any passengers had been pulled off of their flights and sent back. Even members of Congress were turned away Sunday afternoon during their attempt to ascertain whether a Virginia federal judge’s order forbidding removal and requiring legal counsel at Dulles was being followed.

Hundreds of members of the American legal community faced similar hurdles as they flocked to airports nationwide over the weekend to defend and represent people they’d never seen or met. About 50 attorneys huddled inside a “war room” at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Texas, pressing for word from unresponsive officials about the fate of nine travelers detained there. All were eventually released on Sunday afternoon; Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings personally apologized to them for their “unacceptable” ordeal. At JFK International Airport in New York City, a horde of lawyers took over the Central Diner in Terminal 4 and began writing petitions on behalf of more than two dozen people who had been denied entry.

Beyond the airports themselves, the entire Customs and Border Protection agency had also apparently gone silent. Telephone calls to CBP public-affairs officials from Arizona to Puerto Rico on Sunday went unanswered. Automated voice messages on both the CBP and Department of Homeland Security’s primary media-inquiry phone numbers invited callers to leave messages in voicemail inboxes that were already full.

To fill that void, lawyers and some protesters at Dulles held signs aloft in English, French, German, Arabic, and Farsi outside the international arrivals terminal, each one asking travelers if they had seen anyone being detained during their voyage. Had they seen other passengers taken off airplanes? Had someone been taken away at their point of departure? Was anyone pulled aside during the primary screening checkpoint at Customs? Family members looking for relatives who hadn’t appeared after their flight arrived also provided useful information about who was potentially missing, Seddiq said. But questions were many and answers too few.

“You get conflicting reports, of course, of what people were doing because people aren’t paying attention,” she told me. “I think right now there’s a lot of fear too, so people are just not looking around, just getting off flights as quickly as they can.”

Supporting this effort was a group of volunteer lawyers from the D.C. area, the army that my colleague Kaveh Waddell saw assembling on Saturday. More than two-thirds of them were young women; many were people of color. Participants identified themselves by writing their names on stickers in different color markers: red for lawyers with immigration experience, blue for those with foreign-language skills, black for any other attorneys who wanted to help. Their legal backgrounds also varied. Some came from high-profile law firms in the heart of the nation’s capital. Others specialized in immigration law and suddenly found their career’s path intersecting with a major political crisis.

Among those who offered their aid was John McGlothlin, a former Army paratrooper who used the G.I. Bill to attend law school after 14 years of military service, including tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. “I came here when I saw the Trump administration was not following the judicial orders to let in people who live here legally,” he told me. “I didn’t fight to bring the rule of law to other countries to see it ignored here.”

As we spoke, he acknowledged another lawyer passing by. “Interesting times, am I right?” McGlothlin called to him. “Just like the Chinese curse,” came the response.

To keep in touch, the lawyers relied on a WhatsApp group they had set up among themselves with about 300 members—some still at the airport, others chiming in from elsewhere. Updates were terse and unconfirmed. One lawyer said a passenger on a flight from Canada had been detained, but had no further information. Another passenger told one of them an Iranian woman may have been taken off a plane from Istanbul before the flight had left. A few lawyers speculated the CBP could have taken people it had detained to a separate facility outside Dulles, evading the narrowly tailored court order. But concrete facts were hard to come by.

Those who weren’t gathering information in the terminal huddled on the cold linoleum between baggage-claim carousels, poring over laptops to find precedents for a possible motion of contempt against the CBP officers. (It was unclear when such a motion would be filed, or by whom.) Others brought supplies: cartons of bottled water, more than a dozen pizzas and other foodstuffs, as well as pens, paper, and other office trappings for writing petitions and motions. A quiet, determined energy filled the gathering.

One of the most troubling questions for those assembled was whether green-card holders from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by the order were still being detained. There were some indications on Sunday morning the White House would relent and allow them in, but nobody knew if the CBP officers had actually changed course. Then, as 8 p.m. neared, some certainty finally arrived: Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly issued a statement saying he had granted a waiver for lawful permanent residents to reenter the United States, a full reversal of what had been one of the most roundly criticized parts of the new executive order.

And soon thereafter, word spread among the lawyers that an Iraqi family with four children, all of whom had green cards, had now finally made it through secondary screening. After passing through the cheering demonstrators and into the drab Dulles concourse, a squad of attorneys approached them and inquired if they needed legal assistance or other aid. Reporters jostled around them too, asking if they would be willing to be interviewed. But the family quietly and politely declined them all.

They just wanted to go home.
Title: Re: Trump Travel Ban
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 05:38:54 AM
I'll probably write a full blog on this subject at some point, but right now I am pretty backed up and don't like to publish more than 2 of my own blogs/week, to give them a chance to be read.

However, I have to comment on this complete and utter stupidity in the first week of Trumpty-Dumpty's reign as POTUS.

This was so poorly orchestrated it is beyond belief!  :o  Even Modi's demonetization in India was better planned!  The whole Immigration Dept is in sheer chaos and nobody knows if they should follow the POTUS order, or the rescinding order of some Federal Judge? ???  The fucking MSM is simply going WILD with this, and meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of people are in some kind of Limbo Land.  Even if they have a Green Card, if they happen to be overseas visiting somebody, they can't get back in the door.

However, bad and stupid as it is, just imagine the NIGHTMARE of trying to deport all the illegal Mexicans and other SA folks floating around out there in the FSoA!  These numbers are in the MILLIONS, not hundreds or thousands.  It's just nuts, and I am beginning to become convinced that in fact The Donald is quite insane.  He doesn't seem to have a CLUE about planning, and shooting from the hip every day on Twitter just keeps piling on his problems. He's not making ANY friends, ANYWHERE, not even in his own party!  Overseas, he is a complete pariah, with the exception of Vlad the Impaler who still seems to like him, but frankly I do not give that relationship a long lasting timeline.

Personality-wise, this won't cause The Donald to back down, rather he will DOUBLE-DOWN instead and become still more confrontational.  If he has the Koch Brothers against him, he is in some Deep Doo-Doo.

I am having trouble seeing The Donald staying above ground level for a full term at this point.  And I am not referencing his Underground Bunker with the Ford Models either.

RE
Title: Re: Trump Travel Ban
Post by: agelbert on January 30, 2017, 11:04:32 AM
I'll probably write a full blog on this subject at some point, but right now I am pretty backed up and don't like to publish more than 2 of my own blogs/week, to give them a chance to be read.

However, I have to comment on this complete and utter stupidity in the first week of Trumpty-Dumpty's reign as POTUS.

This was so poorly orchestrated it is beyond belief!  :o  Even Modi's demonetization in India was better planned!  The whole Immigration Dept is in sheer chaos and nobody knows if they should follow the POTUS order, or the rescinding order of some Federal Judge? ???  The fucking MSM is simply going WILD with this, and meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of people are in some kind of Limbo Land.  Even if they have a Green Card, if they happen to be overseas visiting somebody, they can't get back in the door.

However, bad and stupid as it is, just imagine the NIGHTMARE of trying to deport all the illegal Mexicans and other SA folks floating around out there in the FSoA!  These numbers are in the MILLIONS, not hundreds or thousands.  It's just nuts, and I am beginning to become convinced that in fact The Donald is quite insane.  He doesn't seem to have a CLUE about planning, and shooting from the hip every day on Twitter just keeps piling on his problems. He's not making ANY friends, ANYWHERE, not even in his own party!  Overseas, he is a complete pariah, with the exception of Vlad the Impaler who still seems to like him, but frankly I do not give that relationship a long lasting timeline.

Personality-wise, this won't cause The Donald to back down, rather he will DOUBLE-DOWN instead and become still more confrontational.  If he has the Koch Brothers against him, he is in some Deep Doo-Doo.

I am having trouble seeing The Donald staying above ground level for a full term at this point.  And I am not referencing his Underground Bunker with the Ford Models either.

RE

(http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png)



Koch and Trump ARE NOT disunited. Trump is part of the Koch team. Trump lied to the heartland saying he would support ethanol. Trump demonizes wind power, exactly in line with Koch propaganda. The ALLEGED animosity between Trump and Koch based on the ALLEGED lack of "contributions" made to the Trump campaign COMPLETELY ignores all the hidden fossil fuel industry money used to corrupt Trump that the Koch Brothers have ALWAYS been an integral part of.

Koch Versus Trump on "immigration" is a Propaganda FOOD FIGHT, nothing more.

It is expected that pro-Trump propagandist K-Dog, who LIED when he said he did not vote for Trump, would want to fuel the fire of this food fight.  ;)

I will shortly post a video on my channel that conclusively shows how absolutely JOINED AT THE FOSSIL FUEL HIP the Trump Administration is with the Koch Brothers lackeys.

The fossil fuelers are ALL birds of a feather.

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230117172434.jpeg)
Title: Re: Trump Travel Ban
Post by: Ka on January 30, 2017, 12:51:32 PM

However, I have to comment on this complete and utter stupidity in the first week of Trumpty-Dumpty's reign as POTUS.

This was so poorly orchestrated it is beyond belief!  :o  Even Modi's demonetization in India was better planned!  The whole Immigration Dept is in sheer chaos and nobody knows if they should follow the POTUS order, or the rescinding order of some Federal Judge? ???  The fucking MSM is simply going WILD with this, and meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of people are in some kind of Limbo Land.  Even if they have a Green Card, if they happen to be overseas visiting somebody, they can't get back in the door.

However, bad and stupid as it is, just imagine the NIGHTMARE of trying to deport all the illegal Mexicans and other SA folks floating around out there in the FSoA!  These numbers are in the MILLIONS, not hundreds or thousands.  It's just nuts, and I am beginning to become convinced that in fact The Donald is quite insane.  He doesn't seem to have a CLUE about planning, and shooting from the hip every day on Twitter just keeps piling on his problems. He's not making ANY friends, ANYWHERE, not even in his own party!  Overseas, he is a complete pariah, with the exception of Vlad the Impaler who still seems to like him, but frankly I do not give that relationship a long lasting timeline.

Personality-wise, this won't cause The Donald to back down, rather he will DOUBLE-DOWN instead and become still more confrontational.  If he has the Koch Brothers against him, he is in some Deep Doo-Doo.

I am having trouble seeing The Donald staying above ground level for a full term at this point.  And I am not referencing his Underground Bunker with the Ford Models either.

Apparently there is the "Trump as clever negotiator" theory which some like Scott Adams seems to be suggesting. That is, at the start you give an outrageously high bid so that you end up closer to what you want. Trouble is, that doesn't work in politics. First, you get slammed for being outrageous, and then when you lower your bid you will get slammed for "caving in", and what you get slammed for is what gets remembered. It also doesn't work in geopolitics, where your initial outrageous bid could start a war, and the backing down is seen as weakness.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 30, 2017, 01:28:27 PM
The mail-in ballot I took a photograph and posted showing Jill Stein as my choice was fake when I advocated third party choices.  Somehow agelbert knows.  Agelbert must have the same super powers as a government troll has.  I did not even know my ballot was fake.

We need a rule so if one Diner puts out clearly false info about another Diner they get banned for 24 hours.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: monsta666 on January 30, 2017, 02:50:45 PM
The mail-in ballot I took a photograph and posted showing Jill Stein as my choice was fake when I advocated third party choices.  Somehow agelbert knows.  Agelbert must have the same super powers as a government troll has.  I did not even know my ballot was fake.

I got to side with K-Dog here: he did post a picture voting for Jill Stein so unless the picture was fake (highly doubtful) then he is not a Trump voter.

Going back to the earlier post K-Dog, I would say your stance that Trump can bring good as he promotes localism is misguided. You could, could argue he is doing the right things for the wrong reasons but the fact the right action is taken under the wrong reasons makes a big difference. The thing is his policies of isolationism may have the effect of promoting more local production but the rub here is that since it done under the wrong premises it means peoples' expectations are vastly different than if the goal were to promote and build resiliency. After all his isolationist policies are done with the ultimate objective of promoting more growth thus allowing the working class to enjoy the middle-class lifestyle they had in the 1960s. This is not going to happen and when people discover this there will be a backlash. If on the other hand he promoted local production to enhance national security and put the disclaimer that this could lead to less growth then peoples' expectations would be more closely aligned to the realities of the world. And this would lead to a better outcome as there is less of a disconnect, in short he is managing expectations in a much better and responsible way.

To add fuel to fire his executive orders promote division and not solidarity so he could be sowing the seeds for future tribalism. In a world that is collapsing you want communities to work together and not fighting each other. It remains to be seen that Trump can ever be capable of uniting the people of the United States. To me the only redeemable qualities he has is the fact he is actually following through with his promises which is more than can be said for a lot of politicians. The fact his promises were so outrageous demonstrates the guy has balls which is something Obama sorely lacked.

The other thing that is somewhat refreshing is his angst against the mainstream media, the intelligence community and the establishment in general but I don't think this will have a lasting legacy; I don't expect future administrations to follow his lead. What is more the fact he himself is not honest undermines a lot of the beef he has. His fake news or alternative facts slogans hint towards the development of mass censorship or the creation of excessive controls on the mainstream media. Granted this fear may not materialise but it is prudent to be mindful of that possibility. The more pressing matter seems to be that Trump is way over his head and there is a strong possibility he will make things worse (more so than the standard politician) after his first term. That is if he gets to the end of the term.

What can't be ignored is he is a massive jackass so anyone who appears to even be neutral (nevermind supportive) will be questioned about their ethical disposition and possible ulterior motives. This is the precise problem Theresa May faces for seemingly taking a neutral stand for his actions over the last week. Her ethics and motives are being questioned. It all boils down to the fact Trump is a VERY divisive figure and there is little middle ground. Like Marmite you either love it or hate it: there is no in between. Personally morals matter and even if he achieves some good thing being a dick head has the tendency to cause negative unintended consequences so his actions cannot be ignored. I was never a fan of taking the moral position of a means to an end. The journey matters and how you achieve your goals is just as important as the end-goal itself.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on January 30, 2017, 04:37:06 PM
Here is my call on the Muslim ban.

This is being done to lay down the groundwork for a false flag terrorist attack or two...or three...God help us at this point. 

They will claim that it is "home grown Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism," or some such descriptor. 

They will use it to lock down any place where the attacks happen.  It will be martial law on the streets.  It will be Standing Rocks in Chicago, LA, Miami...

They could probably use this to tank the market and there will be some cockamamie bullshit explanation like everybody in America is panicking and people are gettin' shot dead trying to get money out of the atm. 

EBT will stop working and it will be complete chaos everywhere.

Annnnnndddddd, game over...it's gone...America is gone!

If I believed in fast decline that is. 

I think it will be stair step all the way to the bottom with a timeline of maybe 50 years before we have complete third world America with some large cities that are still kind of viable.  Probably one of those stair steps will be war...in...Merka, and that will be unlike anything any living American (that isn't a Native at least) has ever seen.  Never mind, I'm sure there are some American Vets left from Pearl Harbor.  Still, I'm talking Pearl Harbor type war on Merkan soil. 

A real WWIII.  Or rather the WWIII that's been ongoing since they got rid of JFK.  Only now their going to bring the action home.  At some point.  It wouldn't surprise me if I'm right about the false flag for war at home. 
Title: Brits get a Pass! Monsta can come to the FSoA for the next Convocation!
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 05:39:04 PM
Trumpty-Dumpty's ban is not holding up too good.

Quote
“The general principle is that all British passport holders remain welcome to travel to the United States,” Johnson told the House of Commons in London on Monday. “We’ve received assurances from the U.S. Embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any British passport holder irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport.”

RE

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/u-s-embassy-contradicts-u-k-foreign-office-over-travel-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/u-s-embassy-contradicts-u-k-foreign-office-over-travel-ban)


U.K. Says It Has Won an Exemption From U.S. Travel Ban
by Robert Hutton
and Thomas Penny
January 30, 2017, 5:21 AM AKST January 30, 2017, 12:46 PM AKST

    Foreign secretary says Trump visa curbs ‘wrong and divisive’
    President’s visit right despite viral petition, Johnson says

Greetham: Markets Willing to Look Through Trump Risk
Trump Defends Travel Ban, Focuses on Regulations

UK's Hilary Benn: Parliament Will Vote to Back Brexit

British passport holders are free to travel to the U.S. and aren’t affected by a ban on people with links to seven mainly Muslim countries, U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said, as officials around the world sought clarity on the new rules.

Johnson was trying to end confusion over the extent of President Donald Trump’s ban after speaking on Sunday to Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. Johnson released a detailed statement after the discussion saying that only nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya, traveling directly to the U.S. from those countries, are affected.

“The general principle is that all British passport holders remain welcome to travel to the United States,” Johnson told the House of Commons in London on Monday. “We’ve received assurances from the U.S. Embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any British passport holder irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport.”
The U.S. embassy in the U.K. released a statement telling dual nationals of the seven countries affected by the travel ban not to attend appointments for visa interviews.

The U.S. Embassy in London had continued on Monday morning to warn all nationals or dual nationals of those countries not to attempt to apply for visas in a statement posted on its website. “Do not schedule a visa appointment,” it said. “If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview.”

This advice was later removed from the embassy website.
Trump Petition

More than 1.5 million people signed a petition to Parliament calling for the invitation for Trump to make a state visit to Britain to be withdrawn as a result of the policy. Lawmakers must now consider whether to schedule a debate on the issue. Johnson criticized the visa ban but said it is right for Trump to make the visit, which will involve Queen Elizabeth II playing host to the president.

“I share the widespread disquiet and I have made my views absolutely clear,” Johnson said of the travel ban. “I have said that it is divisive, I have said that it’s wrong and I have said that it stigmatizes people on grounds of their nationality.”

The foreign secretary blamed the confusion surrounding the travel ban on the way it was implemented, without consulting U.S. government departments. It had “caught them on the hop,” Johnson said.

However, “it is totally right of course that the incoming president of our closest and most important ally should be accorded the honor of a state visit supported by this government, and the invitation has been extended by Her Majesty the Queen quite properly,” he said. Speaking in Dublin, Prime Minister Theresa May said that “that invitation stands.”
Mandela Comparison

Some opposition lawmakers railed against the invitation, with veteran Labour member of Parliament Dennis Skinner describing Trump as a “fascist” and saying that “this man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela,” the first president of a multiracial South Africa, who made a state visit to Britain 20 years ago.

Johnson replied that the monarch is used to controversial guests on state visits, naming a Romanian leader and the current president of Zimbabwe. “Both Nicolae Ceausescu and Robert Mugabe have been received by the Queen,” he said.

As Labour lawmakers continued comparing the situation in the U.S. with Germany in the 1930s, Johnson told them to “stop demeaning the Holocaust.” The foreign secretary, though, has made similar historical comparisons. Earlier this month he warned French President Francois Hollande not to behave like a Nazi in a war film, and last year he said the European Union was an attempt to achieve Adolf Hitler’s goal of a united Europe by different means.

The most important business stories of the day.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
As the statement finished, former Labour leader Ed Miliband successfully deployed a rarely used parliamentary tactic to secure an immediate emergency debate on the travel ban. He said it would make the world a more dangerous place. “What message does this send to a quarter of the world’s population?” he asked. “What message does it send to the world’s Muslims? It says you’re not wanted in the U.S.”

Miliband then joined thousands of people who gathered outside May’s central London residence to protest against Trump and demand that the visit be cancelled. Whitehall was closed by police, and the scenes were replicated in cities across the U.K.
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread: YOU'RE FIRED!
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 08:00:56 PM
His management style hasn't changed since Reality TV.  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/v/7R1vT87nrUQ

This gets better all the time.  Collapse on Steroids!  :icon_sunny:

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0)

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/31/us/31yates/31yates-master768.jpg)

By MARK LANDLER, MATT APUZZO and ERIC LICHTBLAUJAN. 30, 2017
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page

    Share
    Tweet
    Email
    More
    Save

Photo
Sally Q. Yates, the acting attorney general, during a news conference in June. Credit Pete Marovich/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — President Trump fired his acting attorney general on Monday after she defiantly refused to defend his immigration executive order, accusing the Democratic holdover of trying to obstruct his agenda for political reasons.

Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement.

The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed.

Ms. Yates’s decision confronted the president with a stinging challenge to his authority and laid bare a deep divide at the Justice Department, within the diplomatic corps and elsewhere in the government over the wisdom of his order.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.

    If Trump Goes After ‘Dreamers,’ Republican Loyalty May Be Tested
    JAN 30
    Felony Charges Dropped Against 4 Reporters Arrested at Inauguration Protests
    JAN 30
    Trump Supporters Applaud Immigration Order as a ‘Welcome Change’
    JAN 30
    Trump Hotels’ Tweet Draws Backlash After Immigration Order
    JAN 30
    For Leaders of U.S. Allies, Getting Close to Trump Can Sting
    JAN 30

See More »

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers.

The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which the White House confronted an outpouring of dissent over Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on entry visas for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

Ms. Yates’s decision effectively overruled a finding by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which had already approved the executive order “with respect to form and legality.”

Ms. Yates said her determination in deciding not to defend the order was broader, however, and included questions not only about the order’s lawfulness, but also whether it was a “wise or just” policy. She also alluded to unspecified statements that the White House had made before signing the order, which she factored into her review.
Photo
Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in 2012. Credit Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Mr. Trump responded to the letter with a post on Twitter at 7:45 p.m., complaining that the Senate’s delay in confirming his Cabinet nominees had resulted in leaving Ms. Yates in place. “The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons,” Mr. Trump said. “They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.”

One of Mr. Trump’s top advisers condemned the decision as an illustration of the politicization of the legal system. “It’s sad that our politics have become so politicized that you have people refusing to enforce our laws,” Stephen Miller, the senior policy adviser, said in a televised interview.

Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

“For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so,” she wrote.

Ms. Yates’s letter transforms the confirmation of Mr. Trump’s attorney general nominee, Mr. Sessions, into a referendum on the immigration order. Action in the Senate could come as early as Tuesday.

The decision by the acting attorney general is a remarkable rebuke by a government official to a sitting president that recalls the dramatic “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, when President Richard M. Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general for refusing to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

That case prompted a constitutional crisis that ended when Robert Bork, the solicitor general, acceded to Mr. Nixon’s order and fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor.

Ms. Yates, a career prosecutor, is different because she is a holdover from President Barack Obama’s administration, where she served as deputy attorney general. She agreed to Mr. Trump’s request to stay on as acting attorney general until Mr. Sessions is confirmed to be attorney general.

At the State Department, which is also without a leader, career officials are circulating a dissent memo that argues that closing the borders to more than 200 million people to weed out a handful of would-be terrorists would not make the nation safer and might instead deepen the threat. Mr. Spicer countered that the effects of the ban had been exaggerated and that it would help fulfill Mr. Trump’s vow to protect the country.

Taken together, the developments were a stark confrontation between the new president, who is moving swiftly to upend years of policies, and a federal bureaucracy still struggling with the jolting change of power in Washington. There is open hostility to Mr. Trump’s ideas in large pockets of the government, and deep frustration among those enforcing the visa ban that the White House announced the order without warning or consulting them.
Photo
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, defended Mr. Trump’s visa ban during a briefing on Monday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

The reverberations extended beyond Washington. Corporate chieftains from Detroit to Silicon Valley sharply criticized the ban, saying it was inconsistent with their values. Mr. Trump also faced mounting legal challenges across the country as two Democratic-leaning states, Massachusetts and Washington, signaled they would attack the policy in court and a Muslim advocacy group filed a lawsuit calling it an unconstitutional religious test.

Over the weekend, four federal judges temporarily blocked part of the executive order, prohibiting the government from sending people back to their home countries. Court hearings and further motions in those cases are scheduled this week.

At the White House on Monday, questions about the ban overshadowed all other issues. Mr. Spicer acknowledged the State Department’s “dissent channel” has long been a way for its staff to register objections over administration policies. But he displayed little patience for it.

“The president has a very clear vision,” Mr. Spicer said. “He’s been clear on it since the campaign, he’s been clear on it since taking office — that he’s going to put the country first.”

“If somebody has a problem with that agenda,” he added, “that does call into question whether or not they should continue in that post.”

The visa ban has also rattled other agencies: the Defense Department, which says it hurts the military’s local partners in conflict zones like Iraq; and the Department of Homeland Security, whose customs officers are struggling to enforce the directive.

But Mr. Spicer’s blunt warning posed an especially difficult choice for the more than 100 State Department officials who indicated they would sign the memo. They can sign a final version, which would be put on the desk of Rex W. Tillerson, Mr. Trump’s designated secretary of state, on his first day in office. Or they can choose not to identify themselves, and instead rely on the leak of the letter to make their point.

Under State Department rules, it is forbidden to retaliate against any employee who follows the procedures and submits a dissent memorandum. One of the signatories, in a text message, said State Department signatories were trying to figure out what to do.

“This is an important process that the acting secretary, and the department as a whole, respect and value,” said a spokesman, Mark Toner. “It allows state employees to express divergent policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.”

The speed with which the memo was assembled and the number of signers underscore the degree to which the State Department has become the center of the resistance to Mr. Trump’s new order. More broadly, it represents objections to his efforts to cut back on American participation in international organizations and to issue ultimatums to allies.
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

Not surprisingly, the diplomats and Civil Service officers of the State Department are among the most internationally minded in the government; they have lived around the world and devoted their careers to building alliances and promoting American values abroad.

“This channel was established to allow Foreign Service officers to express constrictive dissent,” said John D. Negroponte, a Republican former deputy secretary of state. “This type of commentary seems pretty harmless to me. The administration is being pretty defensive.”

Last spring, 51 State Department officials signed a dissent cable protesting President Barack Obama’s hands-off policy in Syria, which they asserted had been “overwhelmed” by the violence there. They handed the cable to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Unlike that memo, which advocated military action in Syria, this one is broadly focused on not sacrificing American values. It warned that the ban would “increase anti-American sentiment” and that “instead of building bridges to these societies,” it would “send the message that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unacceptable security risk.”

Among those whose views will be changed are “current and future leaders in these societies — including those for whom this may be a tipping point towards radicalization.” It also warned of an immediate humanitarian effect on those who come “to seek medical treatment for a child with a rare heart condition, to attend a parent’s funeral.”

“We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe,” the draft memo concluded.

At the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been on the job since last week, there is frustration for another reason. Mr. Mattis, who was not consulted on the order, plans to send the White House a list of Iraqi citizens who have served with American military forces with the recommendation that they be exempt from the ban, the Pentagon said on Monday.

“There are a number of people in Iraq who have worked for us in a partnership role whether fighting alongside us or working as translators, often doing so at great peril to themselves,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. “Those who support us there and do so at risk to themselves, we will make sure those contributions of support, those personal risks they’ve taken, are recognized in this process.”

Captain Davis said department officials were compiling names of Iraqis who served as drivers, interpreters and linguists and in other jobs with American military personnel in Iraq over the years. He declined to say how many Iraqi citizens might be included in this list or what Mr. Mattis’s personal recommendations to Mr. Trump were on the matter.

The Pentagon list is intended to address a major criticism of Mr. Trump’s executive order: that it will stop the flow of former Iraqi interpreters and cultural advisers who have sought special visas to move to the United States for their own protection.

The White House has argued that the temporary ban is needed so that the United States can develop procedures for the “extreme vetting” of travelers from nations that have been stricken by terrorism. Officials said the Iraqis who will be put on the Pentagon list have already undergone a stringent form of vetting: serving with the United States military in combat.

Reporting was contributed by David E. Sanger, Ron Nixon, Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt in Washington.

Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 30, 2017, 08:08:56 PM
Well that little act of defiance didn't last long, did it?   ::)

You can tell from her demeanour that she knew she was signing her own death warrant.  And Trump was only too happy to oblige as he had to appear strong, and it sends a message to all the Obama hirelings out there.

Any more?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 08:18:41 PM
Well that little act of defiance didn't last long, did it?   ::)

You can tell from her demeanour that she knew she was signing her own death warrant.  And Trump was only too happy to oblige as he had to appear strong, and it sends a message to all the Obama hirelings out there.

Any more?

She also had NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

She was out of a job anyhow once The Donald gets Sessions appointed.  By taking this stand, she made herself a Martyr for the anti-Trump crowd.  She'll now get a top position with the ACLU.  Great Career Move.

There is HAVOC all over the place, in the Justice Dept, State Dept, Homeland Security, EVERYWHERE.

Hard to say how many career prosecutors will have the guts to turn in their resignations, or how many will be fired, but it's not that much different than what Erdocrook did.  Trumpty-Dumpty is trying to do a Cleansing of all who oppose him in Goobermint.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on January 30, 2017, 08:34:59 PM
If trump is allowed to continue to pretend to be president tiny-hands, the whole world is going to melt down and soon.  He needs to be taken out of the White House in handcuffs as soon as possible.  And same with all of his people.   He's going to initiate WWIII and kill us all.  Surely someone can stop this, somehow?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 08:59:51 PM
If trump is allowed to continue to pretend to be president tiny-hands, the whole world is going to melt down and soon.  He needs to be taken out of the White House in handcuffs as soon as possible.  And same with all of his people.   He's going to initiate WWIII and kill us all.  Surely someone can stop this, somehow?

If he keeps it up, he won't be leaving in Handcuffs.  He'll be leaving in a Body Bag.  He's making a LOT of powerful enemies amongst the Globalist crowd.  Basically ALL of the Silicon Valley Billionaires are against him now, and pouring money into the ACLU.  About his only ally these days is Vlad the Impaler.  Even the fucking Koch Brothers are pissed at him!

Somebody here will order in the Cleaner.

http://www.youtube.com/v/pf-Amvro2SY

http://www.youtube.com/v/eIJlL-RNwIk

Pigman vs Pigman is getting SERIOUS!
RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 30, 2017, 09:11:51 PM
Amazon and Expedia Join Lawsuit to Stop Trump’s Immigration Ban

Quote
Pressure on U.S. President Donald Trump grew on Monday over his order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority nations, as the state of Washington announced a legal challenge and former President Barack Obama took a swipe at his successor.
.
.
.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the lawsuit would include constitutional claims, including allegations that Trump's order violates the equal protection clause and the First Amendment.
.
.
.
Technology companies Amazon.com and Expedia, both of which are based in Washington state's Seattle area, will support the state's suit, Ferguson said.

Another Washington state company, Microsoft, said it has been cooperating with the attorney general's office to provide information about the order's impact "in order to be supportive."

"To our employees in the U.S. and around the world who may be directly affected by this order, I want you to know that the full extent of Amazon's resources are behind you," Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos said in a note to employees.
.
.
.

Amazon actually was originally founded as a real, brick-and-mortar bookstore by Jeff Bezos. However, it expanded operations to online bookselling, was incorporated in 1994 and sold made its first online book sale in 1995. Amazon grew slowly throughout the 90s; in fact, it didn't even reach a modest profitability until 2001... The company also has extended its operations to the technology field, becoming a consumer electronics and tablet producer, and a provider of cloud services.

The company also had become one of the USA's biggest H1B visa sponsors; weighing at 26 on the list, having filed for 342 visas in the first two quarters of FY2012.

The supply of foreign workers of American billionaires is threatened.  In another report Expedia said they would be eaten by competition if they did not get their workers and would have to shut down.  If Trump dies not end the H1B program altogether after his travel ban eruption he's not being consistent.  Unless he has everyone who has a small business bring in at least one houseboy to help out with chores.  That could also be consistent.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanderbilt.edu%2FAnS%2Fhistory%2Fcarltodl%2F276%2FPlantation.jpg&f=1)

Bring the game to Main Street. It is only fair.



Immigration lawyers who make mucho money turning H1Bs into Green Cards may be looking for other work.  Or not.  It all depends on what is happening in the third ring.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F03%2F24%2Farts%2F24ring_600.JPG&f=1)

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 30, 2017, 09:37:43 PM
If Trump dies not end the H1B program altogether after his travel ban eruption he's not being consistent. 

"Consistency" and "Trump" in the same sentence is an Oxymoron.  ::)

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 31, 2017, 12:24:06 AM
If Trump dies not end the H1B program altogether after his travel ban eruption he's not being consistent. 

"Consistency" and "Trump" in the same sentence is an Oxymoron.  ::)

RE

Trump's consistency is to be inconsistent.

There you go.  I did it.  It is not an oxymoron.  And it is true.   :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Trump Tracker: Zombie pipelines, EPA under attack, and that’s just Week One
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 02:23:15 AM
http://grist.org/politics/trumps-first-week-was-remarkably-terrible-for-the-climate/ (http://grist.org/politics/trumps-first-week-was-remarkably-terrible-for-the-climate/)

(https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/trump-sign-flickr-julia-desantis-climate-j20-c.jpg?w=970&h=545&crop=1)

Trump Tracker
Zombie pipelines, EPA under attack, and that’s just Week One
By Lisa Hymas on Jan 27, 2017

Did someone say carnage? The environment — and government agencies charged with protecting it — saw a lot of that this past week. Still, some headlines mattered more than others. Here’s a rundown of President Trump’s first week in the White House and which actions should worry you the most.
Rise of the zombies:
Pipelines resurrected

What happened? On Tuesday, Trump revived both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. He invited TransCanada to reapply for a border-crossing permit for Keystone — which the company promptly did just two days later — and told the State Department to make a decision on that application within 60 days. (KXL, in case you’ve forgotten, would transport dirty Canadian tar-sands oil across the American farm belt and one of its most important drinking water sources and encourage the further development of one of the most climate-threatening fuel sources on the planet. President Obama rejected it as “not in the national interest.” That’s an understatement.)

Trump also directed the Army Corps of Engineers to hurry up with review and approval of a permit for the disputed segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which the Standing Rock Sioux say threatens their sacred land and water, and to skip additional environmental review if possible. Trump also signed an executive order that would speed up environmental reviews and approvals for other “high-priority infrastructure,” which could include still more pipelines and fossil fuel projects.

How much should you worry? Some. There are still procedural, legal, and financial hurdles in the way of the KXL and DAPL pipelines, but both pipelines are now a lot closer to getting built than they were a week ago. At the same time, environmentalists and Native American activists are riled up and ready to use every possible tool to try to stop the pipelines, from lawsuits to direct action. Obama’s rejection of KXL and reconsideration of DAPL were two of the highest-profile victories for environmental justice and the “keep it in the ground” movement under the previous administration, and activists aren’t going to give those wins up without a monumental fight.
It’s hammer time:
EPA under attack

What happened? The Trump team is hammering particularly hard on the Environmental Protection Agency. At the start of the week, the administration froze EPA grants and contracts, which fund everything from cleanup of toxic sites to testing of air quality, though most grants and contracts have now been unfrozen. The admin is vetting all external meetings and presentations that employees are planning to give over the next three weeks, reviewing studies and data that have already been published by EPA scientists, and has put a “temporary hold” on the release of new scientific information.

Myron Ebell, who until recently led Trump’s EPA transition team, said on Thursday that his “aspirational” goal would be to see the agency’s staff slashed by two-thirds, from about 15,000 people down to 5,000, and that Trump could be expected to cut about $1 billion from the agency’s annual budget of roughly $8 billion. Ebell is not part of the administration, but his views sound like what you’d expect to hear from Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee to head EPA.

How much should you worry? A lot. The EPA is responsible for implementing federal laws that protect air and water, and determining what the latest science tells us about protecting human health. The agency is involved in everything from helping to fix the Flint water crisis to overseeing cleanup of toxic sites. Weakening the EPA, let alone eviscerating it, would directly and negatively affect Americans’ health.
404: Climate not found:
Website wipeouts

What happened? On Trump’s first day as president, his administration deleted information on climate change from the White House website and replaced it with a page on Trump’s “America First Energy Plan.” Most climate change mentions were deleted from the State Department’s website, as well. On Wednesday, Reuters reported that the Trump team had ordered the EPA to erase the climate change section of its website, but after some bad press, the team backed off, so as of this writing, the section is still up. An EPA webpage on common questions about climate change is gone, though.

How much should you worry? Not that much. “The full contents of the Obama administration’s White House and State Department websites, including working links to climate change reports, have been archived and are readily available to the public,” the New York Times reports, and the EPA’s climate section has been preserved too. But these kinds of moves do make it a little tougher for the public to get accurate information on climate change. More troublingly, they’re an ominous sign of what’s to come. As Trump starts wiping out climate-protecting programs and regulations, that will be the real cause for worry.
History retweets itself:
Social media blackouts

What happened? Hours after the inauguration, Trump ordered the National Park Service to stop using social media because his pride was wounded by an NPS tweet comparing the size of his inauguration crowd to Obama’s in 2008. Over the next few days, gag orders also went out to EPA, the Department of Energy’s renewables team, and the departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services, telling them to stop communicating with the public via social media, press releases, and/or new website content.

The Twitter restrictions backfired: Former and current National Park Service employees tweeted out climate messages from various official accounts as well as new “alt” accounts, which just served to highlight how uncomfortable the Trump team is with scientific statements about climate change.

How much should you worry? Not that much. The Obama administration put similar restrictions in place right after he took office in 2009, putting communications on hold until they got their people in place at departments and agencies. But once the tweets and press releases do start flowing from the Trump administration, you can expect them to be devoid of #ClimateFacts.
The big chill:
Frozen rules

What happened? On Trump’s first day as president, his administration put a freeze on new or pending regulations. This included 30 EPA regulations; four Energy Department rules that would require portable air conditioners, walk-in freezers, commercial boilers, and other equipment to be more energy efficient; and regulations from other departments governing everything from hazardous waste transportation to endangered species protections.

How much should you worry? Not that much. Obama also froze new and pending regs after he took office in 2009. A number of these rules could still go through; industry supports some of the efficiency ones, for example. But this is just one step in what will be a long process of the Trump team halting and dumping rules it doesn’t like. The EPA will be a particular target. On Tuesday, Trump said environmental regulations are “out of control,” and on Thursday, Ebell said the administration might revisit decades’ worth of EPA rules.
The writing’s on the wall:
Blocking the border

What happened? On Wednesday, Trump issued an executive order kicking off the planning process for building his much-hyped wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This is obviously an attack on immigrants. Less obviously, it’s an attack on our climate, threatened species, and fragile ecosystems. Building a 1,300-mile-long, 40-foot-tall wall would require massive amounts of concrete, which would result in a lot of additional greenhouse gas pollution, E&E News points out. And it would exacerbate the problems caused by existing border fences, like blocking the migration of animals such as wolves and jaguars, and triggering flooding.

In building a wall, Trump and his allies would also be ignoring one of the root causes of migration: climate change. We need to be helping people affected by global warming, not creating new ways to shut them out — especially since Americans caused such a big part of the climate problem in the first place.

How much should you worry? Some. There are a lot of stumbling blocks to be overcome before such a huge project could get rolling, but if it does, rare species and their habitats might be permanently devastated, and migrants trying to escape climate chaos and other hardships would suffer.
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty Declares WAR on Silcon Valley? H1B next?
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 03:31:31 AM
If Trumpty-Dumpty actually goes through with an overhaul of H1B Visas and limits the ability of Silicon Valley to hire foreign IT Pros, then he sets up a real WAR with the Tech Billionaires.

This is one I agree with doing though, because I myself was hurt by the H1B Visa program in the 90s.  Many gyms started bringing over Ruskie Coaches under the program, paying them half what those of us Amerikan Coaches who could coach high level gymnastics were getting at the time.  It totally stagnated/reduced the amount of money we could earn coaching the sport.

I don't think he will significantly reduce the program, it would be suicide to do that.  There may be some Window Dressing changes to it, but that is all.

RE

http://www.local10.com/money/trumps-immigration-reform-highskilled-visas-may-be-next (http://www.local10.com/money/trumps-immigration-reform-highskilled-visas-may-be-next)

Trump's immigration reform: High-skilled visas may be next
Spicer: H-1B visa program under investigation
Posted: 7:05 PM, January 30, 2017
Updated: 4:43 AM, January 31, 2017

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) - President Donald Trump has the tech community outraged over his travel ban. But Trump hasn't forgotten about revamping the H-1B program too.

The H-1B visa is the popular pathway that helps high-skilled foreigners work at companies in the U.S.
More Money Headlines

    What to know about Trump's visa and refugee restrictions
    The chances of a refugee killing you - and other surprising immigration stats
    Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves

It's a program that's particularly near and dear to the tech community, with many talented engineers vying for one of the program's 85,000 visas each year.

During a White House briefing Monday, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump will continue to talk about reforming the H-1B visa program, among others, as part of a larger push for immigration reform.

Spicer said Trump will do so through executive order, as well as by working with Congress.

Details on both options are unclear.

In a draft executive order dated Jan. 23 obtained by CNNMoney, changes could impact numerous programs. There were no details on how this would impact the H-1B, except to say that there will be a report within 90 days with suggestions on how to make the program more efficient and how to allocate the visas.

Currently, the visas are doled out by a lottery, and the number of applicants continues to swell each year. In 2016, demand was three times more than the quota.

Three new bills have been introduced this year, offering up suggestions for how to reform the program, including to a proposal to give visas to the highest bidders.

But there are many other programs mentioned in the draft that are important to the tech community. Programs like the J-1, for summer work travel, and the OPT, for international students to stay in the U.S. after graduating. Both were recently revised under the Obama administration. Also, the E-2 program, which is an investor visa, is subject to change.

L-1 visas, which are given to foreign workers who transfer to the U.S. from a company's office abroad, would be subject to site visits, according to the draft. It says that within six months, Homeland Security will start performing site visits for all L-1 holders.

Within two years, the draft order proposes to expand on-site visitation to all employment-based visa programs.

The International Entrepreneurs Rule is also in question. It was passed during the final days of the Obama administration and extends "parole status" to entrepreneurs as a creative alternative to a startup visa -- which the U.S. doesn't have.

While the draft order didn't specifically name the Enterpreneurs Rule by name, it proposed eliminating all parole use that "circumvents statutory immigration policy," which this rule would fall under. The rule is also under a pending freeze issued during Trump's first day in office.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 31, 2017, 01:19:26 PM
According to H1B. rules Russian coaches could only come over if there was a shortage of American coaches which is obviously ludicrous.  Lots and lots of people can coach and would if competition among employers raised wages.  The rules were never taken seriously and there is a cottage industry to turn H1Bs into permanent residents.

Question - what does Expedia do that it can't use talented American workers?  Answer - nothing.

The H1B program never has been about bringing in talent America does not have.  It's only purpose has been to get cheaper workers.  If I had not gotten very lucky and found an unusually rare type of job that my background qualified me for the H1B program would have destroyed my professional career.  If you are a white American male and you interview along-side foreign competition for a job at Microsoft you are screwed!  About half the local jobs in my profession are at Microsoft so the H1B program made it impossible for me to find work I was qualified for locally.  Microsoft directs little satellite personnel staffing companies to provide their talent.  All contract workers are supplied as needed through these companies.  I get at least two or three former Indian nationals who work for these little staffing companies contacting me ever week.  They need to send Americans on a few interviews for the jobs so the Americans can be deemed unqualified.  Or qualified if they are desperate enough to work at half their standard wage.  These head hunters expect me to play their little game for free and they are very rude as Indian men often but not always are.  They think nothing of calling early in the morning (7AM) and getting me out of bed with a postured attitude that they are doing me a favor.

Expedia was a Microsoft spinoff.
.
.
.


In other news I put a link on my website about the environmental impact statement at Standing Rock at chasingthesquirrel.com.  It is on my bulletin board.  I'd snag it and post it in the Diner but I only have phone access right now.  The author makes some interesting observations about Trump.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 02:42:39 PM
According to H1B. rules Russian coaches could only come over if there was a shortage of American coaches which is obviously ludicrous.

Ah, but you see in the early 1990's there WAS a shortage of coaches.  In the wake of Mary Lou Retton, Shannon Miller and the Magnificent 7, the gymnastics bizness EXPLODED.  Gyms popped up like mushrooms all over the country.  There weren't very many coaches around with experience coaching high level gymnastics.  As the new schools began to get gymmies up in level, they couldn't find American ones who knew the hard tricks and started pulling coaches in from overseas, Russians, Romanians and Bulgarians mostly.

Until that happened, for a while I made almost as much as a Dentist.  Now, imagine if they handed out H1B visas to Mexican Dentists to come over here and practice.  What would happen to their salaries?  That's what happened to me.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on January 31, 2017, 05:44:27 PM
According to H1B. rules Russian coaches could only come over if there was a shortage of American coaches which is obviously ludicrous.

Ah, but you see in the early 1990's there WAS a shortage of coaches.  In the wake of Mary Lou Retton, Shannon Miller and the Magnificent 7, the gymnastics bizness EXPLODED.  Gyms popped up like mushrooms all over the country.  There weren't very many coaches around with experience coaching high level gymnastics.  As the new schools began to get gymmies up in level, they couldn't find American ones who knew the hard tricks and started pulling coaches in from overseas, Russians, Romanians and Bulgarians mostly.

Until that happened, for a while I made almost as much as a Dentist.  Now, imagine if they handed out H1B visas to Mexican Dentists to come over here and practice.  What would happen to their salaries?  That's what happened to me.

RE

If the market had been free Americans would have learned to be coaches.  The H1B made it not worth anyone's time or trouble to learn the needed skills.  H1Bs are good for billionaires and horrible for the nation.  Your situation is interesting in that it was temporary.  Typically the program produces shortages that last forever and destroy careers and most of the time the shortages are not real.  Companies will do things like advertise for unfilled positions in ways Americans looking for work never see the advertisements and some lawyers give seminars to companies about how to game the system to cut Americans out.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 05:56:53 PM
According to H1B. rules Russian coaches could only come over if there was a shortage of American coaches which is obviously ludicrous.

Ah, but you see in the early 1990's there WAS a shortage of coaches.  In the wake of Mary Lou Retton, Shannon Miller and the Magnificent 7, the gymnastics bizness EXPLODED.  Gyms popped up like mushrooms all over the country.  There weren't very many coaches around with experience coaching high level gymnastics.  As the new schools began to get gymmies up in level, they couldn't find American ones who knew the hard tricks and started pulling coaches in from overseas, Russians, Romanians and Bulgarians mostly.

Until that happened, for a while I made almost as much as a Dentist.  Now, imagine if they handed out H1B visas to Mexican Dentists to come over here and practice.  What would happen to their salaries?  That's what happened to me.

RE

If the market had been free Americans would have learned to be coaches.  The H1B made it not worth anyone's time or trouble to learn the needed skills.  H1Bs are good for billionaires and horrible to the nation.

Obviously.  The point is here though the market has never been "free", and some industries get preferential treatment for keeping out foreign competition, which sadly for me gymnastics did not get.  Doctors, Dentists & Lawyers all have been given a free pass on this because they have very strong lobbies in the AMA, ADA and Bar Association.  That's why they make so much money.

It would have taken many years to train up so many high level coaches.  Let me give you an example of what happened here.

I was at the first TOP National Training Camp with 4 of my gymmies.  TOP was the "Talent Opportunity Program" that USAG put in place to be able to compete with the Ruskies and Romanians at the international elite level.  At that camp, there were maybe 25 coaches each with about 4-5 gymmies each for 100 gymmies attending the camp.  There was 1 Bulgarian and 2 Russians at the camp.

4 years later when I returned to the camp with a new gymmie, there were well over 50 coaches at the camp for the same number of 100 Gymmies.  Now about half the coaches were Ruskies or Romanians.

By the time I quit the sport the first time, the market was simply FLOODED with Ruskies.  It drove the salaries into the fucking toilet.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on January 31, 2017, 09:16:06 PM
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375785-muslim-politics-trump-us/ (https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375785-muslim-politics-trump-us/)
The soft coup – US Establishment goes to war with President Trump
Catherine Shakdam
Catherine Shakdam is a political analyst, writer and commentator for the Middle East with a special focus on radical movements and Yemen. A regular pundit on RT and other networks her work has appeared in major publications: MintPress, the Foreign Policy Journal, Mehr News and many others.Director of Programs at the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies, Catherine is also the co-founder of Veritas Consulting. She is the author of Arabia’s Rising - Under The Banner Of The First Imam
31 Jan, 2017

And you thought President Donald Trump’s first TV interview was bad … I guess there are new bottoms to be still found when it comes to the 'Circus de Trump' and mainstream media’s propensity to fan hysteria. How fast can you say set up and manipulation?

Donald Trump unleashed a furious storm on his newly inaugurated presidential head when he decided to put ink to paper and sign off on what the world refers to as the infamous “Muslim ban.” And just like that, America … and most of the Western world flocked to the defense of Muslims, arguing Washington’s vile immigration policy and fascist streak!

Who knew it would take a visa ban for the world to jolt back to its humanity and realize that exclusion on the basis of one’s faith or ethnic profile equates to a pernicious act of terror? Hold on! THAT was former US President Obama.

All Trump did with his executive order was to temporary halt the entry of refugees into the United States. All he’s really done is use Obama’s policy as a springboard for his own tempestuous and misguided terror crusade against an enemy he has failed to identify adequately. So let’s give credit where credit is due and thank America’s very own presidential Nobel Peace prize for so kindly laying down the foundation of Trump’s misguidance.

To be perfectly fair, America has done a lot worse by way of injustice and state-sponsored criminal behavior over the years than an entry ban: rendition, black sites, drone strikes, systematic torture, unilaterally declaring war on countries … Need I go on?

Please understand that I am in no way, shape or form excusing or even rationalizing Trump’s decision – but at the same time, I do not like being ran circles around on account a few liberals are upset their “candidate” didn’t get into the White House.

Are we seriously asked to believe that this anti-Trump wave of dissent is organic, and not in the slightest orchestrated by powerful invisible hands? Repeat after me so that it may sink in: soft coup d’état.

No? What about colored revolution? That term might sit better actually. If you recall there were a few pink hats taking a stroll down the public squares the other day, trumpeting against the Donald.

What it is that El Presidente did? What it is that is so very evil and antithetical to American values, and sense of decency? I’m at a loss here. While I recoil at Trump’s entry ban in that it is humanely questionable and painstakingly pointless since it fails to address the very premise of its purpose: fighting terrorism, I don’t accept the tsunami of uber-sentimentalism liberals have showered us with.

Bottom line I don’t buy it!

The Oval Office did not manifest the list of countries; it recycled the intelligence that Obama’s administration put forth and then pulled a Trump on America.

I find the sudden cries of outrage both hypocritical and ever so conveniently timely.

From where I’m sitting the US did not exactly wait for Mr. Trump’s arrival to revel in all things Islamophobic. And yet today a litany of Hollywood stars and other “celebs” are having a day at the bashing their favorite tangerine pantomime to a nasty pulp.

I would personally argue that the United States has not only defined but architected the very industry that is Islamophobia, to the tune of misconceptions, bigoted generalizations, and downright fascist orientalism. Here I would say that Mr. Trump stands the product of decades of exceptionalism, political arrogance, and intolerant self-entitlement.

Let us remember for a second that President Trump sits in the White House not as conquering sociopath, but an elected official. In all fairness, every decision he has so far taken – good or bad, has been in keeping with his campaign promises. Might it be the Mexican wall, the anti-lobby act, or the Muslim ban, Mr. Trump has been consistent.

As his daughter once declared: “He says what he means, and he means what he says.”

So what gives?

Was America expecting Mr. Trump to suddenly transform into a Democrat and front liberal policies instead of enacting those he promised his fan base?

So yes Mr. Trump’s entry ban is abhorrent in its implementations, but then again I will say that former presidents have done a lot worse than stop people at the border over the years and no one batted an eyelid.

I will refer here to Dr. Ammar Nakshawani’s, who, amid a storm of nonsensical neoliberal platitudes saw through the smokescreen. He told me: “The issue here is not so much the Muslim ban but the landslide of human rights violations that made it possible. The real enemy here is not the seat of government or any one individual, but religious and political exclusionism. We can no longer afford to think ourselves against other people – violence, calls for dissent and vengeful retributions only serve to incense passions, not bring solutions. We need to rethink not just immigration but the way we address counter-terrorism.”

Even the UK has joined the anti-Trump bandwagon, with its petition, failing to look at its neo-fascist reflection.

While I applaud Jeremy Corbyn for speaking up against Washington’s latest stunt, he is most probably one of the few decent politicians left in town, I would rather a ban be implemented against those systematic right violators, who, to this day, buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the UK – Bahrain and Saudi Arabia come to mind.

I would rather righteous anger be directed at those actors, who, from their pulpits fan ethnocentrism and sectarian bigotry, lumping Islam and the Middle East to the hateful ideology the likes of Deash have fronted over the decades.

But that, of course, would require real political involvement and THAT flash-in-the-pan-activists don’t really do, do they?

    UPDATE: Petition to ban #Trump state visit to UK already got over 200,000 supporters https://t.co/DwfHbzHzXBpic.twitter.com/eEP6KT2C9W (https://t.co/DwfHbzHzXBpic.twitter.com/eEP6KT2C9W)
    — RT UK (@RTUKnews) 29 января 2017 г.

There is a dangerous agenda at play, and from the looks of it, most of us all have fallen for it.

While we should condemn any and all discriminatory policies against minorities, we cannot allow for anger and political myopia to distract from the obvious: the Establishment’s attempted takeover of America’s institutions. Let’s not confuse demagoguery with a genuine populist movement.

I agree! I cannot help but see an engineered narrative of planned dissent against President Trump on account he did not bow to the Establishment and played the neocons’ game.

So yes absolutely, most of his policies are crass and unsophisticated, but they pale in comparison to the horrors previous administrations have fronted. I would say that Mr. Trump’ real crime has been his delivery. Obama was much better at packaging mass murder than Mr. Trump has been at fronting unapologetic ethnocentrism infused with corporate supremacism.

Does anyone really want to play Soros and Clinton’s games?
Title: Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 09:22:02 PM
I hope the Federal Workers planning to use Social Media Anonymously have a real good knowledge of encryption and how to use proxy servers.  ::)

Sounds to me like a Purge will be coming down the pipe.

Now, if they really had some GUTS, they would all just resign En Masse.  But who want's to give up their paychecks?

Sticking to your principles is tough when you gotta pay the mortgage and feed the kids.  ::)

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/31/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.7341bc14ebde (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/31/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.7341bc14ebde)

Politics
Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump
Many federal workers are showing unusual opposition to Trump
Embed Share
Play Video2:42
The Post’s Marc Fisher explores several examples of opposition to President Trump from employees across federal government agencies. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde, Randolph Smith/Photo: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
By Juliet Eilperin, Lisa Rein and Marc Fisher January 31 at 8:34 PM

The signs of popular dissent from President Trump’s opening volley of actions have been plain to see on the nation’s streets, at airports in the aftermath of his refu­gee and visa ban, and in the blizzard of outrage on social media. But there’s another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with implementing any new president’s agenda.

Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.

And a few government workers are pushing back more openly, incurring the wrath of a White House that, as press secretary Sean Spicer said this week about dissenters at the State Department, sends a clear message that they “should either get with the program, or they can go.”

[From order to disorder: How Trump’s immigration directive exposed GOP rifts]
Then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates at the Justice Department on May 15, 2015. (Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post)

At a church in Columbia Heights last weekend, dozens of federal workers attended a support group for civil servants seeking a forumto discuss their opposition to the Trump administration. And 180 federal employees have signed up for a workshop next weekend, where experts will offer advice on workers’ rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

At the Justice Department, an employee in the division that administers grants to nonprofits fighting domestic violence and researching sex crimes said he and his colleagues have been planning to slow their work and to file complaints with the inspector general’s office if they are asked to shift grants away from their mission.

“You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” said the employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Through leaks to news organizations and internal complaints, he said, “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable.”

[The first days inside Trump’s White House: Fury, tumult and a reboot]

The resistance is so early, so widespread and so deeply felt that it has officials worrying about paralysis and overt refusals by workers to do their jobs.

Asked whether federal workers are dissenting in ways that go beyond previous party changes in the White House, Tom Malinow­ski, who was President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said, sarcastically: “Is it unusual? . . . There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

The permanent bureaucracy, the backbone of the federal government and the bulwark against many presidents’ activist intentions, is designed to be at least a step removed from the crosswinds of partisan politics.
A protester waves an American flag in front of the Supreme Court during a protest against Trump's executive orders. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

But for years, many conservatives have argued that the federal bureaucracy is stacked against them, making it harder for them to get things done even when they control the White House, Congress or both.

[What exactly can Trump do? Find out on The Post’s new podcast.]

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a Trump adviser and longtime critic of the bureaucracy, said the pushback against the new administration reveals how firmly entrenched liberals are and how threatened they feel by the new regime. He cited an analysis by the Hill newspaper that showed that 95 percent of campaign donations from employees at 14 federal agencies went to Hillary Clinton last fall.

“This is essentially the opposition in waiting,” Gingrich said. “He may have to clean out the Justice Department because there are so many left-wingers there. State is even worse.”

Gingrich said Trump might push for civil service revisions to make it easier to fire federal workers. He predicted that the public would back the president over federal employees.

The signs of resistance in federal offices range from low-level grumbling and angry opposition posted online to anonymous promises of outright insubordination as new policies develop.

The State Department has emerged as the nexus of opposition to Trump’s refugee policy, in part because it has an official dissent channel where Foreign Service employees can register opposition without fear of reprisals. The channel, formed in 1971, has been used to raise policy objections to the Vietnam War and other conflicts. Several hundred employees signed the dissent cable objecting to Trump’s refugee policy.

Secretaries of state have taken the dissent channel so seriously that they have altered policies in response to complaints. In 2002, then-Secretary Colin Powell presided over the awarding of a prize for “constructive dissent” to an employee who had pushed back against a deputy secretary.

But State Department employees are nervous enough now that the American Foreign Service Association on Tuesday sent out an advisory called “What You Need To Know When You Disagree With U.S. Policy.” The note spelled out employees’ legal protections but warned that “walking out in protest of a U.S. government policy, even just temporarily, would be considered a strike” and can result in being fired.

Other agencies that lack that kind of tradition are in more turmoil. When the White House last week ordered an end to all advertising and other outreach activities encouraging Americans to sign up for health plans through Affordable Care Act marketplaces, employees at the Health and Human Services Department protested, pointing out that the ban on ads and robo-calls would probably result in less coverage of the most desirable customers — young and healthy adults whose scant use of medical care can help lower prices for everyone else.

The internal protest, combined with an outcry on social media and from the insurance industry, prompted the Trump administration to revise its directive in less than 24 hours.

Leaders of government workers unions and other associations say their members will do their jobs professionally and energetically, even if they disagree with the president’s politics or methods.

“There is no evidence we are seeing of a widespread federal bureaucracy revolt,” said Bill Valdez, president of the Senior Executives Association, a nonprofit that advocates for career federal managers. He said many managers are telling workers, “Don’t get involved in the drama happening elsewhere.”

The new administration’s talk of swift changes in the role and scope of some departments has frustrated many workers, said Randy L. Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, but although “federal workers are now extremely concerned . . . federal workers are used to seeing the political winds change direction.”

Workers at some agencies say they have seen no sign of opposition. At the Education Department, which Trump at one point suggested be dismantled, one official said the new administration has been surprisingly agreeable: no major changes in policy, no troubling directives. “We’ve been, I think, heartened by how things are going here,” the official said.

But the level of worry is particularly high at places such as the Environmental Protection Agency. The head of that agency’s union got an email Tuesday from a local union leader asking for guidance on what to tell workers to do “if they receive an illegal order from management.”

The union representing scientists and other EPA employees is exploring the formation of a fundraising arm to “defend federal scientists we anticipate will be disciplined for speaking out or for defending scientific facts,” particularly about climate change, said Nicole Cantello, vice president of Local 704 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents EPA workers in the Chicago area.

John O’Grady, a career EPA employee who heads a national council of EPA unions, said Trump’s firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates on Monday night after the Obama-era holdover had refused to implement Trump’s refugees ban “sends kind of a chilling effect through the agency. I’m afraid at this point that many federal employees are just fearful for their jobs, and they want to keep their heads down.”

Two Twitter feeds, @altUSEPA and @ActualEPAFacts, have attracted more than 200,000 followers and call themselves part of “the Resistance.” They appear to be run by outside activists, rather than agency employees.

Top EPA officials have tried to reassure anxious employees. In an email to employees, Don Benton — a top Trump adviser to the EPA — insisted that media reports of crackdowns on public speech and scientific autonomy were “just not accurate. . . . Changes will likely come, and when they do, we will work together to implement them.”

In any administration, one man’s principled resistance is another’s outrageous defiance. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s nominee for attorney general, said in 2015 that it is the obligation of a federal worker to stand up against improper orders.

In a confirmation hearing for Yates, Sessions said: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you do to things you just need to say no about. . . . Like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that. Don’t do that.’ ”

Presidents appoint the heads of agencies and a few officials at the top of each department, but the great majority of those who implement any administration’s agenda are civil servants who enjoy legal protections meant to encourage them to blow the whistle on fraud and corruption.

Short of formal whistleblowing, workers are finding small ways to express their opposition. At the Justice Department, some career civil servants asked their bosses whether they were allowed to protest their new president by marching or contacting a member of Congress. The answer was yes, if they did so on their own time and in their personal capacity.

The day after the November election, the department’s ethics office said workers could wear clothing that contained a political message. One lawyer who had worn a Hillary Clinton T-shirt beneath another layer of clothing said that once the advice was issued, “I took the layer off.”

In the past few days, protest accounts have popped up on social media from employees at several agencies. An immunologist who formerly worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created what he called a “resistance page,”@viralCDC, for CDC employees to post vaccine and public health information that workers believe the Trump administration may seek to remove from public view.

There has been no freeze on communications at the CDC, said spokeswoman Kathy Harben.

Similarly, a Twitter account protesting Trump’s policies has popped up in the Defense Department. Using the handle @Rogue_DoD, a service member has tweeted everything from Defense Department documents warning about the effects of climate change to an opinion piece accusing Trump of insufficient consultation with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Career staff members in at least five departments said they are staying in close contact with Obama administration officials to get advice on how to handle Trump initiatives they consider illegal or improper.

Former labor secretary Thomas Perez, who also headed the Justice Department’s civil rights division under Obama, said he has not been in contact with his former employees but is working to mobilize grass-roots opposition.

“We’re mindful of our ethical responsibilities,” said Perez, who is running for chair of the Democratic National Committee. “We’re also mindful that we’re in an existential crisis.”

While many federal workers have begun to consider avenues of dissent only since the inauguration, others had been preparing for weeks. In the last days of Obama’s tenure, several departments catalogued data and reports and got them into the hands of allies outside the government.

The use of social media as outlets for worried government workers has spread through much of the bureaucracy. After Trump complained about the National Park Service using Twitter to compare the crowd sizes at his inauguration with the far larger assembly at Obama’s gathering in 2009, a gag order temporarily silenced the official social media account.

Local Politics Alerts

Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.

In response, an ex-employee at Badlands National Park who still had access to its Twitter feed started posting facts about climate change. The rogue tweeter won more than 60,000 followers before park officials regained control of the account.

Social media accounts have popped up to defend the Smithsonian Institution and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. Employees at some Smithsonian units have been reminded that policies prohibit them from using their work devices to post political comments.

“We don’t intend to change the way we do things,” said Smithsonian Secretary David J. Skorton. “That’s not out of a sense of defiance, it’s not out of a sense of not wanting to be accountable, it’s out of a sense of believing in the mission of the Smithsonian, which is to do research and share information with the public.”

Academics have debated for years whether bureaucracies inevitably grow to a point where they, as political scientist Michael Nelson of Rhodes College put it, “ineluctably overpower” their political masters. “Time and time again,” he wrote, “major efforts to make administration more responsive to political control have had the opposite effect. It is enough to chasten even the boldest reformer if, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, his every assault on his tormentors doubles their strength.”

Emma Brown, Lalita Clozel, Brady Dennis, Karen DeYoung, Darryl Fears, Anne Gearan, Amy Goldstein, Joe Davidson, Dan Lamothe, Peggy McGlone, Carol Morello, Ellen Nakashima and Lena Sun contributed to this report.
Title: Solving the Immigration Discrimination Problem
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 09:39:50 PM
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375785-muslim-politics-trump-us/ (https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375785-muslim-politics-trump-us/)
The soft coup – US Establishment goes to war with President Trump

There is a very EZ way for His Trumpness to get over these accusations of being discrimanatory against Muslims.  BAN ALL IMMIGRATION FROM ANYWHERE BY ANYBODY!

Also ban all Emmigration OUT of the FSoA, except with just the clothes on your back.  Peter Thiel can head for New Zealand, but not take any of his money with him.

Just SLAM THE DOOR SHUT!

As with Don Rickles, if you hate EVERYBODY, you're not discriminatory.  :icon_sunny:

http://www.youtube.com/v/F4m5HLVwsco

RE
Title: Gorsuch for SCOTUS
Post by: RE on January 31, 2017, 11:18:48 PM
This was the first "well done" move of the Trumpty-Dumpty administration in the early days of their authority.

First off, the choice of Gorsuch is a good one, his credentials are impecable.  Not that I like his politics or expect to approve of his rulings any more than I liked Scalia, but you can't say the guy is not qualified for the job as you can with most of the rest of The Donald's appointments so far.

Beyond making a pretty good choice from the conservative POV, His Trumpness managed to keep this one a secret right to the last minute, no leaks got out on who the choice would be and they snuck him into Washington for the Big Announcement without any major Newz Outlet revealing the choice beforehand.  Given how much scrutiny there is on El Trumpo right now, this was quite a feat.

The Dems commit to fighting against this nominee, but that is likely a losing cause.  The Reps were able to hold up a new nominee long enough to get Trump into office, and there is no way now that a SCOTUS Judge the Dems like will be nominated.  So theymight as well approve this guy and move on to some other battles maybe they can win, and hope none of the other Lifetime Appointees who are more or less on their side croak or retire.

The whole concept of Lifetime Appointment to this job is to me quite irritating.  You get stuck with ideologues on the bench who are there for DECADES.  You can't get rid of them just about no matter WHAT they do or how they rule.  How is that "democracy"?

In practice, the "Lifetime Appointment" appears to last around 20-30 years, depending how old the judge is when appointed and when he croaks.  Gorsuch is just under 50, so he could easily have a good 30 year run in this post.  That means he is there to close to 2050!

In order to have decent continuity on the SCOTUS,  I don't favor a real short 4 year term like for the POTUS, or 6 years like a Senator, but I think 10 years is quite sufficient, 15 the MOST.  There also should be some type of official Review Process of their work, and a mechanism to remove them before the term has expired.

In any case, I think the FSoA Goobermint will collapse long before Gorsuch retires or buys his ticket to the Great Beyond.  Politically, he sounds a lot like Scalia, but more pleasant in negotiations and more erudite.  So the overall court balance does not change too much if/when he is installed on the bench there for the rest of his life, or the rest of the life of the FSoA Goobermint.  The real problems arise if more of the progressive side of the bench croaks or retires in the next 4 years.

Just have to see how that goes.  I do think Gorsuch will be approved though, and The Donald could have picked a much worse one than this.

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trump-kept-gorsuch-nomination-a-secret-until-the-clock-struck-8/2017/01/31/c745c23c-e828-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.4f8939c3c1d5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trump-kept-gorsuch-nomination-a-secret-until-the-clock-struck-8/2017/01/31/c745c23c-e828-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.4f8939c3c1d5)

Politics
How Trump kept Gorsuch nomination a secret until the clock struck 8
Trump announces Neil Gorsuch as Supreme Court pick
Embed Share
Play Video1:40
President Trump has announced Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado as his pick for the Supreme Court. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
By Philip Rucker January 31 at 10:36 PM

Tuesday night’s presidential announcement of a Supreme Court nomination had all the makings of a Donald J. Trump production — except for this: The secret held.

When President Trump strode down the red-carpeted hallway of the White House to take the lectern beneath the crystal chandeliers of the East Room and face a bank of live cameras — in prime time, at 8:02 p.m. sharp — his viewers did not know for certain which of the finalists might step forward to claim a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.

It was Judge Neil Gorsuch who did so, walking from a side room with his wife, Louise, to join the president at center stage.

“So was it a surprise?” Trump asked in his remarks.

It was.
President Trump, right, shakes the hand of Judge Neil Gorsuch during a Supreme Court nominee announcement in the East Room at the White House on Tuesday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

And that counted as a major feat for an administration already becoming known for its leaks. Trump’s pick of Mike Pence as vice president leaked out in news reports prematurely. So did almost all of his Cabinet selections. Many of the executive orders Trump has signed leaked out ahead of time.

But not his Supreme Court pick.

“I thought, with this president there was a decent chance that it would be somebody that we didn’t have any idea it was going to be — and tonight’s ‘Apprentice’-style delivery moment might have had an evening-gown competition and a swimsuit edition,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said.

Of course, Gorsuch had been widely reported as one of Trump’s finalists, and he was on a list of 21 judges Trump released during last year’s campaign as his potential nominees.

Until Trump unveiled his nominee, most news organizations, including major television networks, were reporting only that the choice was down to two finalists. But the Independent Journal Review was the first to report Tuesday afternoon, several hours in advance of Trump’s announcement, that Gorsuch would be the nominee.

Trump considered six finalists to fill the vacancy left by the late justice Antonin Scalia: Gorsuch, federal judges Thomas Hardiman, William H. Pryor Jr., Diane S. Sykes, Amul R. Thapar and Texas Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Of those six, Trump personally interviewed four: Gorsuch, Hardiman, Pryor and Thapar. The first three met with Trump in his personal residence at Trump Tower in New York on Jan. 14, Spicer said.
The path ahead for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee View Graphic

In the interview process, Trump evaluated the finalists in part on which would best emulate Scalia in judicial philosophy and background, his advisers said.

“He was constantly looking for somebody who reflected Justice Scalia’s love of the Constitution, adherence to law, not making up the law as you go to fit your political whims or your personal interests,” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president.

In recent weeks, Trump began to settle on his choice, but did not make a final decision until Monday, when he called Gorsuch to notify him that he was the pick. White House Counsel Don McGahn informed the other finalists that they had not been selected, Spicer said.

From there, Trump’s aides set into motion a cloak-and-dagger plan they had orchestrated to bring Gorsuch to Washington without him being detected.

After receiving the president’s call, Spicer said, Gorsuch and his wife traveled to a neighbor’s house in Boulder, Colo. They were met by a team of lawyers from the White House Counsel’s Office, who briefed the judge on the announcement plans for Tuesday and helped him prepare for the frenzy that would come.

The White House aides ferried Gorsuch down a quiet farm road to the airport, where they boarded a military jet for the flight to Joint Base Andrews, just outside of Washington, Spicer said.

The judge and his wife stayed in Washington on Monday night at a private residence before visiting the White House on Tuesday, prior to the announcement.

Politics newsletter

The big stories and commentary shaping the day.

All day Tuesday, speculation was rampant about Trump’s selections. Hardiman had been spotted at a gas station in Pennsylvania, and CNN reported that he along with Gorsuch were being brought to Washington to add suspense ahead Trump’s final selection. Spicer said that only Gorsuch traveled to Washington, noting that Hardiman had been spotted making a pit stop on his way to a meeting in Pennsylvania.

Then there were the Twitter accounts. Two similar accounts were created identifying both Hardiman and Gorsuch as Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, with links to White House websites. It seemed as if the White House social media team had been behind the accounts — again, to create suspense — but White House officials said that was not the case.

In the end, hopes for a reality-show ending — the president holding a rose, calling both men on stage and, to the drumroll of a military band, giving it to one of them — were dashed.

Trump’s announcement was formal and scripted — presidential, even — as he read from his teleprompters:

“I would like to ask Judge Gorsuch and his wonderful wife, Louise, to please step forward,” Trump said. “Please, Louise, judge. Here they come. Here they come.”
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread: NUKE 'EM!!
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 01:20:38 AM
BOOM! FAST COLLAPSE!

RE

© Carlos Barria / Reuters
FEAR ITSELF
Donald Trump Eyes Nukes to Eradicate Terror
The president’s shills say he’s keeping his campaign promises. Remember just how apocalyptic those promises were.

(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2017/02/01/donald-trump-eyes-nukes-to-eradicate-terror/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/49530843.cached.jpg)

David Cay Johnston
01.31.17 8:00 PM ET

Let’s step back and take a calm look at President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to America by residents of seven predominantly Muslim countries and giving preference to religious minorities in those countries, specifically Christians.

As the libertarian Cato Institute has pointed out, since 1975 the number of Americans slain here by people from those seven countries is zero.

The questions to focus on are:

1) What are Trump and his nationalist advisors trying to achieve, and

2) How does the ban advance their stated goals?

The purpose of the order was not to protect Americans from radical jihadists hell-bent on murder, as the order states. Trump’s subsequent conduct confirms this, as we shall see.

The order justifies itself by declaring that increased vetting of immigrants, refugees, and visitors after the 9/11 attacks “did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.”

Yet it does not apply to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, the countries where the 9/11 attackers came from, nor to Pakistan or Afghanistan. It does not apply to any of the predominantly Muslim countries where Trump is known to have significant business dealings, with profits hidden in his still-unreleased tax returns here and through his crony state connections there.

What the order unquestionably did was give aid and comfort to ISIS and other apostate Muslim organizations. Even if you believe that Trump and Steve Bannon—his modern Rasputin—had no such intent, the result is what matters. Presidents don’t get a pass for being ignorant or bigoted. Presidents are accountable for their actions.
Advertisement
inRead invented by Teads

Trump’s and Bannon’s public statements show they want us to all be in dire fear for our lives. That fear enhances their power. They want to drive from government anyone who does not support their radical agenda, which Bannon has said is to destroy the existing order in line with his self-proclaimed Leninist views.

When 100 State Department officials used an official channel to express their concerns that the executive order would put Americans in danger, the White House response was retaliatory. Sean Spicer, the press secretary, said they should get in line behind Trump or quit. Never mind that these diplomats acted properly, expressing their concerns under a policy that promises no retaliation. Never mind that American presidents are not dictators, at least not yet.

That Trump acted with disregard for the safety of Americans—soldiers in Iraq, tourists in Britain, executives in Indonesia—became evident Monday night when he fired Sally Q. Yates, a career federal prosecutor who was serving as the acting attorney general.

Yates was the only Justice Department official with authority to obtain surveillance warrants vital to protecting Americans by intercepting terrorist telecommunications.

What makes the firing revealing is that it was gratuitous.

Yates said that—until someone convinced her that the travel ban was lawful—her department would not defend it in court. So far every judge who has heard challenges to the legality of the executive order has ruled against Trump.
Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.
Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

If Trump cared about the safety and security of Americans, he could have used his authority to hire outside counsel to represent the government in defending his order while keeping Yates in place so new surveillance warrants could be obtained when needed until the Senate confirms a new attorney general.

While Trump demands "extreme vetting" of people from Muslim-dominated countries, his order was so poorly vetted that it is unlikely to survive appeals, and an experienced lawyer like Yates knew that.

In reply, the White House said Yates, who it called “very weak,” has “betrayed the Department of Justice.”

Ironically, when Yates was up for confirmation, she was asked: “Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper?”

Yates answered that she would always act to ensure the integrity of the Justice Department by defending the Constitution.

The person asking her that? Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general nominee who at his own hearing made a similar pledge to be independent.

Trump’s surrogates keep saying he is just keeping the promises he made to the American people. His executive orders so far make it very clear how far he intends to go to keep those promises, regardless of what actually fulfilling them could mean to the nation and the world.

So let’s take a closer look at some of those promises, which are cause for more fear than the terror threat Trump keeps insisting he will somehow solve.

Let's turn to what Trump surrogates keep telling us: that the president is now faithfully carrying out what he promised on the campaign trail. So what else did he promise that's relevant to this ill-considered executive order?

In his inauguration address Trump promised to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth.”

Bombs can kill. Drones and assassins can take out jihadi leaders. But only nuclear weapons can wipe something from the face of the earth.

What has Trump said about using nuclear weapons? Candidate Trump repeatedly told voters that, if he became president, he would use nuclear weapons. Trump told voters that he “loves war” and he meant “including nukes, yes, including nukes.”

What more insight is needed? The man whose shills are bragging now about how he keeps his promises said again and again as a candidate that he will use nuclear weapons. Barely a minute into his presidency he promised to wipe jihadis “from the face of the earth.”

That the whole point of nuclear weapons is to never use them is lost on Trump, whose ignorance on many issues I documented in my book The Making of Donald Trump. The man does not know a Shia from a Sunni or even a Sikh, nor the reasons those differences matter. The executive order shows that he does not understand that banning people from Iraq and Sudan—including those who worked with American soldiers, spies, and diplomats at great personal risk—can only put Americans in more danger.

Reviving blind and murderous hatred of America until there are new terrorist attacks helps Trump draw more power into the Oval Office. Think about the travel-ban executive order in relation to Trump’s elevating the nationalist Bannon—whose avowed goal is “to bring everything crashing down”—to his national security meetings while the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon henceforth can attend only by invitation.

These are not the actions of a servant of the American people temporarily imbued with authority to act in our name, but of a know-nothing hell-bent on doing whatever he wants.

So, don’t be surprised if an American tactical nuclear weapon gets used against ISIS. I expect that he will at least try to get the military to do so—and I hope the generals say no.

But whether Trump sticks by that campaign promise or not, expect more official actions designed to inflame the world, to turn annoying minor problems like the dwindling ranks of ISIS into conflagrations that can serve as an excuse for ever more White House power.

As for fear, don’t be afraid of pipsqueak ISIS so much as our president misusing our government to make us ever less safe and then offering himself as our only protection.
Title: American Psychosis
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 02:09:26 AM
Good one from Chris!

RE

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_psychosis_20170129 (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_psychosis_20170129)

American Psychosis
Posted on Jan 29, 2017

By Chris Hedges

(http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Smilefish_590.jpg)

Reality is under assault. Verbal confusion reigns. Truth and illusion have merged. Mental chaos makes it hard to fathom what is happening. We feel trapped in a hall of mirrors. Exposed lies are answered with other lies. The rational is countered with the irrational. Cognitive dissonance prevails. We endure a disquieting shame and even guilt. Tens of millions of Americans, especially women, undocumented workers, Muslims and African-Americans, suffer the acute anxiety of being pursued by a predator. All this is by design. Demagogues always infect the governed with their own psychosis.

“The comparison between totalitarianism and psychosis is not incidental,” the psychiatrist Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote in his book “The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing.” “Delusional thinking inevitably creeps into every form of tyranny and despotism. Unconscious backward forces come into action. Evil powers from the archaic past return. An automatic compulsion to go on to self-destruction develops, to justify one mistake with a new one; to enlarge and expand the vicious pathological circle becomes the dominating end of life. The frightened man, burdened by a culture he does not understand, retreats into the brute’s fantasy of limitless power in order to cover up the vacuum inside himself. This fantasy starts with the leaders and is later taken over by the masses they oppress.”

The lies fly out of the White House like flocks of pigeons: Donald Trump’s election victory was a landslide. He had the largest inauguration crowds in American history. Three million to 5 million undocumented immigrants voted illegally. Climate change is a hoax. Vaccines cause autism. Immigrants are carriers of “[t]remendous infectious disease.” The election was rigged—until it wasn’t. We don’t know “who really knocked down” the World Trade Center. Torture works. Mexico will pay for the wall. Conspiracy theories are fact. Scientific facts are conspiracies. America will be great again.

Our new president, a 70-year-old with orange-tinted skin and hair that Penn Jillette has likened to “cotton candy made of piss,” is, as Trump often reminds us, “very good looking.” He has almost no intellectual accomplishments—he knows little of history, politics, law, philosophy, art or governance—but insists “[m]y IQ is one of the highest—and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.” And the mediocrities and half-wits he has installed in his Cabinet have “by far the highest IQ of any Cabinet ever assembled.”

It is an avalanche of absurdities.

This mendacity would be easier to repulse if the problem was solely embodied in Trump. But even in the face of a rising despotism, the Democratic Party refuses to denounce the corporate forces that eviscerated our democracy and impoverished the country. The neoliberal Trump demonizes Muslims, undocumented workers and the media. The neoliberalDemocratic Party demonizes Vladimir Putin and FBI Director James Comey. No one speaks about the destructive force of corporate power. The warring elites pit alternative factsagainst alternative facts. All engage in demagoguery. We will, I expect, be condemned to despotism by the venality of Trump and the cowardice and dishonesty of the liberal class.

Trump and those around him have a deep hatred for what they cannot understand. They silence anyone who thinks independently. They elevate pseudo-intellectuals who adhere to their bizarre script. They cannot cope with complexity, nuance or the unpredictable. Individual initiative is a mortal threat. The order for some employees of several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s research service, the National Park Service and the Department of Health and Human Services, to restrict or cease communication with the press or members of Congress, along with the attempt to impose 10-year felony convictions on six reporters who covered the inauguration protests, signals the beginning of a campaign to marginalize reality and promote fantasy. Facts depend solely on those who have the power to create them. The goal of the Trump administration is to create an artificial consistency that conforms to its warped perception of the world.

“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations,” Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda—before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world—lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”

Trump’s blinding narcissism was captured in his bizarre talk to the CIA on Jan. 21. “[T]hey say, is Donald Trump an intellectual?” he said. “Trust me, I’m, like, a smart persona.”

“I have a running war with the media,” he added. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number one stop [in the new presidency] is exactly the opposite—exactly. And they understand that, too.”

He launched into an attack on the media for not reporting that “a million, million and a half people” showed up for his inauguration. “They showed a field where there was practically nobody standing there,” he said about the media’s depiction of the inauguration crowd. “And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well. I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we’re not going to let it rain on your speech.”

He has been on the cover of Time “like, 14 or 15 times,” Trump said in speaking of his criticism of the magazine because one of its reporters incorrectly wrote that the president had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. “I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right? I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record, Mike, that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?” [Editor’s note: Photographs or drawings of Trump were on the cover of Time 10 times in the last year and a half and once in 1989.]

Trump’s theatricality works. He forces the press and the public to repeat his lies, inadvertently giving them credibility. He is always moving. He is always on display. He has no fixed belief system. Trump, as he consolidates power, will adopt the ideology of the Christian right to fill his own ideological vacuum. The Christian right’s magical thinking will merge seamlessly with Trump’s magical thinking. Idiocy, self-delusion, megalomania, fantasy and government repression will come wrapped in images of the Christian cross and the American flag.

The corporate state, hostile or indifferent to the plight of the citizens, has no emotional pull among the public. It is often hated. Political candidates run not as politicians but as celebrities. Campaigns eschew issues to make people feel good about candidates and themselves. Ideas are irrelevant. Emotional euphoria is paramount. The voter is only a prop in the political theater. Politics is anti-politics. It is reality television. Trump proved better at this game than his opponents. It is a game in which fact and knowledge do not matter. Reality is what you create. We were conditioned for a Trump.

Meerloo wrote, “The demagogue relies for his effectiveness on the fact that people will take seriously the fantastic accusations he makes, will discuss the phony issues he raises as if they had reality, or will be thrown into such a state of panic by his accusations and charges that they will simply abdicate their right to think and verify for themselves.”

The lies create a climate in which everyone is assumed to be lying. The truth becomes suspect and obscured. Narratives begin to be believed not because they are true, or even sound true, but because they are emotionally appealing. The aim of systematic lying, as Arendt wrote, is the “transformation of human nature itself.” The lies eventually foster somnambulism among a population that surrenders to the magical thinking and ceases to care. It checks out. It becomes cynical. It only asks to be entertained and given a vent for its frustration and rage. Demagogues produce enemies the way a magician pulls rabbits out of a hat. They wage constant battles against nonexistent dangers, rapidly replacing one after the other to keep the rhetoric at a fever pitch.

“Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler proceeds like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go out and kill him in self-defense,” Arendt wrote. “This certainly is a little crude, but it works—as everybody will know who has ever watched how certain successful careerists eliminate competitors.”

We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book “Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror,” being “rendered helpless by overwhelming force.” This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms “the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning.”

To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality. We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship—activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.

The original source of this article is Truthdig
Copyright © Chris Hedges, Truthdig, 2017

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 01, 2017, 09:57:35 AM
No shit!!!  That was an awesome article.  He nailed that shit down to the ground. 

I'm impressed. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 11:28:24 AM
No shit!!!  That was an awesome article.  He nailed that shit down to the ground. 

I'm impressed. 

Yes. I had posted that article earlier. I guess not to many people noticed.  :(
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 01, 2017, 12:31:03 PM
No shit!!!  That was an awesome article.  He nailed that shit down to the ground. 

I'm impressed. 

Yes. I had posted that article earlier. I guess not to many people noticed.  :(

I didn't see it Agelbert.  Had I seen it, I would have read it and gave you the credit for the find ;)

However, you did not write it.  The props go to Chris Hedges for having penned it.  I even logged onto facepalm (which I haven't done in a month or so) just to share it with virtual land beyond the Diner...which is the only social site I use on the net.  Facepalm is a waste of fucking time because it's mostly about distraction. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 12:42:19 PM
No shit!!!  That was an awesome article.  He nailed that shit down to the ground. 

I'm impressed. 

Yes. I had posted that article earlier. I guess not to many people noticed.  :(

I didn't see it Agelbert.  Had I seen it, I would have read it and gave you the credit for the find ;)

However, you did not write it.  The props go to Chris Hedges for having penned it.  I even logged onto facepalm (which I haven't done in a month or so) just to share it with virtual land beyond the Diner...which is the only social site I use on the net.  Facepalm is a waste of fucking time because it's mostly about distraction.

I missed AGs posting of the article also, otherwise I would have credited him for the find.

Ya can't read every post on the Diner Forum, there are simply too many posted each day.  You get involved in discussions on particular threads, and you miss other ones.  Nature of the beast.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 01, 2017, 02:05:24 PM
The question is though, can Hedges meet the challenge posed in two articles I have posted here which ask where these liberal critics were when Obama was in power, and doing the exact same thing?  Just to clarify, I think both Obama and Trump (and Bush and Clinton before them) policies are despicable and extreme right-wing, yet it is clear there is a partisan liberal campaign against only Trump, which is totally hypocritical.

Quote
Hedges: Tens of millions of Americans, especially women, undocumented workers, Muslims and African-Americans, suffer the acute anxiety of being pursued by a predator. All this is by design. Demagogues always infect the governed with their own psychosis.

And the criticism of Obama, who had 8 years to address these issues?  No mention of him and his policy of deporting undocumented workers, his non-stop wars against Muslim countries, his drone strikes on targeted individuals (plus collateral damage), and maintenance of the position on women and African Americans.

I used to be a fan of Juan Cole's biting criticism in the Bush years, but he went soft on Obama, and where did it get him - did he manage to influence the great man into doing liberal things on Iran?  No.

In the previous article we had Bannon being called both Rasputin and a Leninist, FCS.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on February 01, 2017, 02:14:38 PM
That is a good article but lunatics were in charge before Trump took office.  Trump is only a lunatic of a different flavor.  While it is true that if Trump is moving his lips lies are leaking from it like anal drippage from a loose sphincter, the paradox is that Trump is not pretending to be other than who he actually is.  That is actually an improvement. 

Trump is our national laxitive.  He purges us of the delusions that BAU was good enough.  Had BAU been good enough we would not have been Trumped.
Title: The Great SCOTUS Battle
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 03:50:53 PM
Give it up.  This is a battle that cannot be won.

RE

http://www.newsweek.com/why-neil-gorsuch-must-not-be-confirmed-supreme-court-eichenwald-551429 (http://www.newsweek.com/why-neil-gorsuch-must-not-be-confirmed-supreme-court-eichenwald-551429)

 Opinion
Eichenwald: Neil Gorsuch Is Supremely Qualified, and Must Not Be Confirmed
By Kurt Eichenwald On 2/1/17 at 3:55 PM

Opinion
Neil Gorsuch

This is a very hard column to write. I’m about to abandon everything I have believed for much of my life about the proper principles for federal governance. Unfortunately, too many of our political leaders did that long ago, which makes this conclusion inevitable: Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, must not be confirmed. Democrats must fight it to the bitter end. The preservation of the final, tattered remains of American constitutional government demands it.

This has nothing to do with Gorsuch as a nominee. On first assessment, there is no doubt he is eminently qualified, perhaps more so than several other sitting justices were at the time of their nomination. He has done it all. His legal education is first-rate, with a law degree from Harvard and a doctorate in jurisprudence from Oxford. He has seen up close how the Supreme Court works, serving as a clerk for Justice Byron White and then Justice Anthony Kennedy. For more than a decade, he has served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where he has gained a reputation as someone committed to the rule of law. He is a member of the federal Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.

There was a time in history when that would have been enough. And if someone with Gorsuch’s pedigree had been nominated by, say, George W. Bush in his first term, I would be supporting Senate confirmation under Article II of the Constitution—not because I agree with him on policy, which to me has usually been irrelevant in selecting a judge, since the high court is not supposed to be filled with the equivalent of lifetime senators. If he is qualified and has a philosophy of jurisprudence that is widely recognized as legitimate—which Gorsuch does—that would be enough.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

02_01_jurt_gorsuch_01 Donald Trump announced his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 31. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Related: With Gorsuch, Trump leans right but stays mainstream

But no more. Gorsuch, unfortunately, must be sacrificed on the altar of obscene partisanship erected by the Republicans in recent years. Temper tantrums designed to undermine the Constitution for naked political purposes cannot be rewarded. Our government cannot survive the short-term games-playing that has replaced fidelity to the intent of the Founding Fathers’ work in forming this once-great nation.

This goes back to the unconscionable decision of Republicans who refused to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, another eminently qualified candidate who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second most important court in the nation. But in a decision that will go down as one of the greatest abuses of the Constitution in this nation’s history, the Senate’s Republican majority, under the leadership of their unprincipled majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications and would not take a vote.

Instead, they made up a rule: A nominee for the Supreme Court can be considered for only three-quarters of any president’s term. In the fourth year, confirmations have to wait until after the election. And so the Supreme Court has been hobbled for coming up on one year—and, because the confirmation hearings will inevitably drag on, for months more to come.

The Republican fiat horrified those who care about the Supreme Court as an institution. Sixteen scholars sent a letter to Obama to express their dismay, writing, “The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate’s best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation’s history.”

A letter to the Senate leadership, signed by 356 legal scholars, said refusing Garland a vote “is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government.”

In another letter, 33 law professors issued to Obama and the Senate Republicans an open letter stating, “The Senate’s constitutional duty to ‘advise and consent’—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court, and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees.”

No matter—the Republicans would not budge. Garland received no hearings, no vote, no consideration whatsoever.

And don’t think this has anything to do with a philosophy about how the court should run. When Obama in 2013 nominated Patricia Ann Millett to be a judge for the all-important circuit court in Washington, D.C., the Republicans pulled another “principle” out of their nether regions: no new judges should be added to that court to…save money. And because the court didn’t have a big enough workload. Seriously. Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that nonsense without bursting out laughing at the magnitude of his mendacity.

At the time, there were four seats open on the D.C. circuit court. That Obama was unable to get a single judge confirmed to that court by Senate Republicans—despite having already served his first term and being only into the first year of his second—puts the lie to this idea that the GOP obstruction of judicial nominees was about anything other than undermining the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. Grassley, who will certainly appear in future history books as the political hack who destroyed our judicial branch of government, let the veil slip about his real reasons for trying to keep Obama nominees off the court: politics.

“The court is currently comprised of four active judges appointed by Republican presidents and four active judges appointed by Democrat presidents,” Grassley said in a floor statement on the Millet nomination, using the incorrect name for the Democratic Party in a petty game some conservative bullies find amusing. “There is no reason to upset the current makeup of the court, particularly when the reason for doing so appears to be ideologically driven.”

In other words, in the first year of a president’s term, the senior Republican most responsible for getting judicial nominees to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote said that disrupting a 4-4 balance on the panel second to the Supreme Court was politics. So a first-year nominee can’t be accepted, a fourth-year nominee can’t be accepted, and courts should function with the constant risk of tie votes because a president fulfilling his constitutional duty by nominating judges for courts is “ideologically driven.”

This might explain why Democrats now say the Supreme Court should remain divided in the same way—four justices appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republicans—for the rest of Trump’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that President Trump puts up,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. “I promise you.”

Liberal commentators agree. “It would be completely decent, honorable and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee Trump names,’’ said the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary, a liberal think tank. “If you truly believe that a particular nominee would wreak havoc on America, why not do everything you can to stop him?”

I’m sure these words of principle enrage conservatives. I’m sure they believe that the Democrats' allowing the high court to continue in its current hobbled state throughout Trump’s term is un-American and destructive to our country. In fact, these statements have already been roundly condemned on Fox News, with numerous pundits ripping at the Democratic Party (or Democrat Party) for allowing its thirst for partisan advantage to blind them to our constitutional principles. And, if you’re a conservative, I hope you seethe at those statements.

Why? Because it exposes your grotesque hypocrisy.

You see, I lied. Feinstein never said anything about the Democrats refusing to confirm any Trump nominee for the next four years—that was actually Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, in statements he made when most of the political world believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was going to be president. As for the comment from the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary? I made up the name; as far as I can tell, no such organization exists. Instead, I was quoting the conservative publication The Federalist, which, once again, was writing at a time when almost no one believed Trump would win, to justify engaging in a blanket refusal to ever confirm any Clinton nominee.

Now if you’re a conservative who was angered by those statements when you thought they came from Democrats—and now that you know they were uttered by your partisan brethren, you’re scrambling to justify them—face facts: You are lying and self-deluded.

02_01_kurt_gorsuch_02 Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch walks with former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte and Colorado Senator Cory Gardner before a meeting on Capitol Hill on February 1. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

With the elevation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (“the worst justice in history”©), whose rulings often contain the same blatant hoop-jumping demonstrated by Grassley in justifying pure partisanship as a matter of constitutional principle, I gave up on the idea of my once-beloved Supreme Court as a deliberative body in which legal interpretations are weighted against constitutional precepts and precedent. Instead, I now accept it is just an apparatus of political parties.

I always know how Alito will rule; his decisions are amusing because I enjoy trying to predict what assertions of nonexistent fact he will employ in his arrogant effort to reach the outcome he desires. None of the other justices—conservative or liberal, past or present—are as flagrant in their use of the court to impose their political beliefs on the rest of us. At the very least, until Alito is gone, the Supreme Court is a partisan joke deserving of no respect, which for me is a horrifying thing that I could never have imagined I would say.

No doubt, Gorsuch would be a better judge than Alito (and so would my dog). Like Garland, he would bring some desperately needed jurisprudential intelligence, fairness and consistency to the court, regardless of what anyone may think of his decisions on a political basis. But none of that matters. There is a country to save.

The Republicans cannot be allowed to reap the rewards of unprincipled obstructionism that sets a precedent that will destroy the last remnant of our country’s constitutional credibility. They cannot wing it—that a court doesn’t have enough work to justify the number of judges it is supposed to have, or that a Democrat should not be allowed to have a judicial nominee confirmed in a fourth year or first year or full term of a presidency—and just make up rules as they go along, undermining everything this country has stood for just to grab some short-term gain. There are no principles anymore; just as with Alito’s decisions, there are desired outcomes and an infinite number of rationalizations to help anti-American conservatives get there.

So what should the Democrats do? Fight. Recognize the nature of the other party. There is no longer reason; there is no longer fidelity to our history or to the Founders’ intents; there is no longer compromise. Republicans cannot be allowed to benefit from their efforts to undermine the intent of the framers of our Constitution. (To give you an idea of how bad this could become if Democrats don’t fight, think of this: that conservative commentator writing for The Federalist who was justifying obstructing every Clinton nominee argued that Republicans, as an option, could constitutionally just let the Supreme Court die if it could be done without paying too high a political price. There is no limit to how far the Republicans may go.)
Related Stories

    Neil Gorsuch’s SCOTUS Nomination: What Now?
    Neil Gorsuch, his Late Mother and Threats to the EPA

Will the Republicans use the “nuclear option,” which will allow them to override any attempt at a filibuster, making it so that a Supreme Court nominee needs only a majority vote? Let them. If Democratic senators won’t throw everything into stopping this nomination, regardless of the price, then they may as well pack it up and go home, because they have cowered and cringed their way into a government where governance has died, where party is more important than country.

The end game: Force Trump to renominate Garland. Filibuster every nominee until he does. I have no illusions that the Senate would accept Garland; the Republicans still have the majority. Then Trump will come in with another nominee, almost certainly Gorsuch. Yes, even under that scenario the Republicans will gain a seat on the court; they would have anyway, even if they had considered Garland during the Obama administration, because the GOP had the Senate majority then too and would have voted him down. (Democrats knew the price of a Trump victory could be that the Republicans would get to name the next Supreme Court justice, and enough of the anti-Clinton types chose to sit out or cast their vote for someone who could not win anyway. They have relinquished the right to object.) 

So even though Garland would not have won a Senate confirmation vote, a precedent needs to be established: the Senate’s confirmation responsibilities under the Constitution are not a joke, are not something where absurd rationalizations that pass for smarts on Fox News can be used to circumvent history and precedent. Nominees must be given hearings and votes. And yes, if that means letting the Republicans blow up the filibuster, let them do it.

Then, when a Democratic president is in office, the Democrats control the Senate, and there is no filibuster, show the Republicans a real exercise in raw power: revive Franklin Roosevelt’s plan to pack the Supreme Court and fill it with the most liberal justices around. If the Republicans insist on turning the judiciary into a political plaything, play the roughest game of hardball they have ever seen.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 01, 2017, 05:32:29 PM
Better than Scalia. Better than the other two on the short list.

But might be a conservative influence on Kennedy. Gorsuch was Kennedy's clerk, and Kennedy respects him a lot. It is rumored that Kennedy could retire any time (he's 81) and then Trump might bring in another conservative justice, maybe somebody worse than Gorsuch.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 06:04:37 PM
Wwellll, that doan mattah, 'cause, by executive order, emperor  trump has declared and decreed that the Official Language of the United States shall henceforth be BULLSHIT.

Bullshit.  All the time. Beginning to end.  DONE!

https://youtu.be/i-4r9XE5EM0
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 01, 2017, 06:19:36 PM
Boom. Done.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 06:43:45 PM
Oops!  I forgot to say BOOM.   Sorry.


Boom, done!
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 01, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
Some information from RT, not one line "jokes":

https://www.rt.com/usa/375992-us-president-muslims-migration/ (https://www.rt.com/usa/375992-us-president-muslims-migration/)
Preferences, registries and bans: How US presidents dealt with Muslims
1 Feb, 2017

President Donald Trump’s temporary travel restrictions on seven countries has polarized the US public, with critics calling it a “Muslim ban” unfairly singling out a religion and proponents defending it as necessary for Americans’ safety.

The Trump administration has rejected the descriptions of the January 27 order as a “Muslim ban,” noting that more than 40 Muslim-majority countries in the world are not affected by it.

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,”Trump said, defending the order. “The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

    ‘Ammunition to jihadists’: Democrats decry Trump's 'Muslim ban' outside Supreme Court https://t.co/5HG2Yp2RUT (https://t.co/5HG2Yp2RUT)
    — RT America (@RT_America) January 31, 2017

Obama’s Iraqi ban

President Barack Obama indeed ordered a review of all background checks for Iraqi refugees resettled in the US and imposed new security requirements on any new ones, after the May 2011 arrest of two Iraqis in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The duo was captured in a FBI sting operation and charged with conspiring to send material support to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The investigation showed the men lied on their immigration paperwork and had previous ties with terrorists; one’s fingerprints were even found on an unexploded bomb in Iraq.

While Obama’s decision did not amount to a ban, in practice the increased scrutiny resulted in “significantly fewer” refugees entering the US in 2011 and 2012. According to a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service, the number of refugees in 2011 was 26,500 below the allotted 80,000, while the shortfall in 2012 amounted to 17,700 fewer than the reduced quota of 76,000.

Bushes’ Muslim registry

The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program was introduced by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 during the first Gulf War, when US immigration demanded fingerprints and registrations from certain travelers from Iraq and Kuwait.  While the requirement was dropped by 1993, the legal structure remained in place.

President George W. Bush resurrected the registry following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The list of countries affected was expanded to include Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria. By 2003, the NSEERS applied to 25 countries, all but one with Muslim majorities: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

The Obama administration discontinued the use of the registry in 2011, and officially shut down the NSEERS in December 2016. The official reasoning was that the program had become obsolete and inefficient. In practice, it had been expanded to everyone entering the US, through the US-VISIT program (Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) introduced in 2007.

Carter’s Iran ban

In April 1980, President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US due to the ongoing hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. Carter’s order to sever diplomatic relations with Iran and impose a trade embargo also instructed the US departments of state and justice to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.”

“We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly,” the order said. The ban was lifted in 1981, after Iran released the US hostages.

Muslim refugees very welcome

While refugee admissions were suspended for a short time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, refugees from Muslim-majority nations accounted for an ever-larger percentage of the total US admissions in the years that followed.

The final guidance documents issued by the Obama administration increased the US refugee admission quota to 110,000. Of those, 40,000 were supposed to come from the Near East and South Asia, specifically from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – and a very small group of Bhutanese refugees living in India since the 1990s.

(https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.02/original/58922d57c36188d12e8b4570.jpg)
© fas.org

The same document included an allocation for 35,000 refugees from Africa, primarily from Congo, Somalia and Eritrea – the latter two being majority Muslim. Trump's executive order has temporarily halted all refugee admissions, pending review.

'Sovereign right'

While the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has expressed concern over Trump’s executive order, at least one prominent Gulf Arab statesman did not seem perturbed.

“Countries have the sovereign right to make decisions to ensure their sovereignty. The US president used this sovereign right,” Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, said on Wednesday at the press conference in Abu Dhabi after meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“There are attempts to claim that this decision is aimed against a religion, but it is not aimed against a specific religion. This is a temporary decision, it is important to take these points of view into account,” Al-Nahyan added.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 06:45:30 PM
That is a good article but lunatics were in charge before Trump took office.  Trump is only a lunatic of a different flavor.  While it is true that if Trump is moving his lips lies are leaking from it like anal drippage from a loose sphincter, the paradox is that Trump is not pretending to be other than who he actually is.  That is actually an improvement. 

Trump is our national laxitive.  He purges us of the delusions that BAU was good enough.  Had BAU been good enough we would not have been Trumped.

  :emthdown: ::)

Some people never get tired of repeating the same disingenuous propaganda to make light of the FACT that Obama was the fascist warm up, but Trump is the MAIN EVENT. Have you gotten your storm trooper uniform yet?

I'm sure you will applaud the Trump EPA's take on the "Chinese Hoax (SEE BELOW)".

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280714152422.png)

Better than Scalia. Better than the other two on the short list.

But might be a conservative influence on Kennedy. Gorsuch was Kennedy's clerk, and Kennedy respects him a lot. It is rumored that Kennedy could retire any time (he's 81) and then Trump might bring in another conservative justice, maybe somebody worse than Gorsuch.

  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

Eddie,
Gorsuch is SCALIA all over again, PERIOD.

Trump picks Gorsuch, conservative in Scalia mode, as Supreme Court nominee
By Gary Gately   
Published
January 31, 2017
 
SNIPPET:

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday night Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative federal judge known for sharing the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s views on issues including abortion, firearms, affirmative action and capital punishment. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif)


Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch could help decide the course of his presidency and have far-reaching consequences for the American legal system for years to come. (http://i1.wp.com/gas2.org/files/2013/05/stupid.png)


http://www.talkmedianews.com/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/2017/01/31/trump-picks-gorsuch-conservative-gun-rights-police-powers-supreme-court-nominee-conservative/ (http://www.talkmedianews.com/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/2017/01/31/trump-picks-gorsuch-conservative-gun-rights-police-powers-supreme-court-nominee-conservative/)


 

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 01, 2017, 06:55:23 PM
He wouldn't have been my pick, but I stand by by the statement that he was the lesser of the evils this time at bat. He is not a carbon copy of Scalia. He is big on 4th amendment rights, something the SCOTUS has been  busy dismantling.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 06:57:19 PM
No shit!!!  That was an awesome article.  He nailed that shit down to the ground. 

I'm impressed. 

Yes. I had posted that article earlier. I guess not to many people noticed.  :(

I didn't see it Agelbert.  Had I seen it, I would have read it and gave you the credit for the find ;)

However, you did not write it.  The props go to Chris Hedges for having penned it.  I even logged onto facepalm (which I haven't done in a month or so) just to share it with virtual land beyond the Diner...which is the only social site I use on the net.  Facepalm is a waste of fucking time because it's mostly about distraction.


Of course I didn't write it. What does that have to do with the price of peaches in the Doomstead Diner? ???

I do not now, or ever had, a Face Book page. WTF!!?

I read Truthdig and post comments with the Agelbert handle on Disqus. You can too with no problems at all. Finally, if you go to the link I posted with the article, you will find a rather nice bit of back and forth between me an some fine folks at Truthdig.  :evil4:


American Psychosis
Posted on Jan 29, 2017

By Chris Hedges

Reality is under assault. Verbal confusion reigns. Truth and illusion have merged. Mental chaos makes it hard to fathom what is happening. We feel trapped in a hall of mirrors. Exposed lies are answered with other lies. The rational is countered with the irrational. Cognitive dissonance prevails. We endure a disquieting shame and even guilt. Tens of millions of Americans, especially women, undocumented workers, Muslims and African-Americans, suffer the acute anxiety of being pursued by a predator. All this is by design. Demagogues always infect the governed with their own psychosis.

“The comparison between totalitarianism and psychosis is not incidental,” the psychiatrist Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote in his book “The R A P E of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing.” “Delusional thinking inevitably creeps into every form of tyranny and despotism. Unconscious backward forces come into action. Evil powers from the archaic past return. An automatic compulsion to go on to self-destruction develops, to justify one mistake with a new one; to enlarge and expand the vicious pathological circle becomes the dominating end of life. The frightened man, burdened by a culture he does not understand, retreats into the brute’s fantasy of limitless power in order to cover up the vacuum inside himself. This fantasy starts with the leaders and is later taken over by the masses they oppress.”

The lies fly out of the White House like flocks of pigeons: Donald Trump’s election victory was a landslide. He had the largest inauguration crowds in American history. Three million to 5 million undocumented immigrants voted illegally. Climate change is a hoax. Vaccines cause autism. Immigrants are carriers of “(t)remendous infectious disease.” The election was rigged—until it wasn’t. We don’t know “who really knocked down” the World Trade Center. Torture works. Mexico will pay for the wall. Conspiracy theories are fact. Scientific facts are conspiracies. America will be great again.

Our new president, a 70-year-old with orange-tinted skin and hair that Penn Jillette has likened to “cotton candy made of P I S S,” is, as Trump often reminds us, “very good looking.” He has almost no intellectual accomplishments—he knows little of history, politics, law, philosophy, art or governance—but insists “(m)y IQ is one of the highest—and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.” And the mediocrities and half-wits he has installed in his Cabinet have “by far the highest IQ of any Cabinet ever assembled.”

It is an avalanche of absurdities.  (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

This mendacity would be easier to repulse if the problem was solely embodied in Trump. But even in the face of a rising despotism, the Democratic Party refuses to denounce the corporate forces that eviscerated our democracy and impoverished the country. The neoliberal Trump demonizes Muslims, undocumented workers and the media. The neoliberal Democratic Party demonizes Vladimir Putin and FBI Director James Comey. No one speaks about the destructive force of corporate power. The warring elites pit alternative facts against alternative facts. All engage in demagoguery. We will, I expect, be condemned to despotism by the venality of Trump and the cowardice and dishonesty of the liberal class.

Trump and those around him have a deep hatred for what they cannot understand. They silence anyone who thinks independently. They elevate pseudo-intellectuals who adhere to their bizarre script. They cannot cope with complexity, nuance or the unpredictable. Individual initiative is a mortal threat.

The order for some employees of several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s research service, the National Park Service and the Department of Health and Human Services, to restrict or cease communication with the press or members of Congress, along with the attempt to impose 10-year felony convictions on six reporters who covered the inauguration protests, signals the beginning of a campaign to marginalize reality and promote fantasy.
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0c9604f5a5b095bd9b9cef8602a0211319abf5b194eb41e5b7a39136f1c19bc5.jpg)

Facts depend solely on those who have the power to create them. The goal of the Trump administration is to create an artificial consistency that conforms to its warped perception of the world.

“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations,” Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda—before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world—lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”

Trump’s blinding narcissism was captured in his bizarre talk to the CIA on Jan. 21. “(T)hey say, is Donald Trump an intellectual?” he said. “Trust me, I’m, like, a smart persona.”  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)

“I have a running war with the media,” he added. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number one stop [in the new presidency] is exactly the opposite—exactly. And they understand that, too.”
 
He launched into an attack on the media for not reporting that “a million, million and a half people” showed up for his inauguration. “They showed a field where there was practically nobody standing there,” he said about the media’s depiction of the inauguration crowd. “And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well. I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we’re not going to let it rain on your speech.” (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif)

He has been on the cover of Time “like, 14 or 15 times,” Trump said in speaking of his criticism of the magazine because one of its reporters incorrectly wrote that the president had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. “I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right? I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record, Mike, that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?” (Editor’s note: Photographs or drawings of Trump were on the cover of Time 10 times in the last year and a half and once in 1989.)

Trump’s theatricality works. He forces the press and the public to repeat his lies, inadvertently giving them credibility. He is always moving. He is always on display. He has no fixed belief system. Trump, as he consolidates power, will adopt the ideology of the Christian right to fill his own ideological vacuum. The Christian right’s magical thinking will merge seamlessly with Trump’s magical thinking. Idiocy, self-delusion, megalomania, fantasy and government repression will come wrapped in images of the Christian cross and the American flag.

The corporate state, hostile or indifferent to the plight of the citizens, has no emotional pull among the public. It is often hated. Political candidates run not as politicians but as celebrities. Campaigns eschew issues to make people feel good about candidates and themselves. Ideas are irrelevant. Emotional euphoria is paramount. The voter is only a prop in the political theater. Politics is anti-politics. It is reality television. Trump proved better at this game than his opponents. It is a game in which fact and knowledge do not matter. Reality is what you create. We were conditioned for a Trump.

Meerloo wrote, “The demagogue relies for his effectiveness on the fact that people will take seriously the fantastic accusations he makes, will discuss the phony issues he raises as if they had reality, or will be thrown into such a state of panic by his accusations and charges that they will simply abdicate their right to think and verify for themselves.”

The lies create a climate in which everyone is assumed to be lying. The truth becomes suspect and obscured. Narratives begin to be believed not because they are true, or even sound true, but because they are emotionally appealing. The aim of systematic lying, as Arendt wrote, is the “transformation of human nature itself.” The lies eventually foster somnambulism among a population that surrenders to the magical thinking and ceases to care. It checks out. It becomes cynical. It only asks to be entertained and given a vent for its frustration and rage. Demagogues produce enemies the way a magician pulls rabbits out of a hat. They wage constant battles against nonexistent dangers, rapidly replacing one after the other to keep the rhetoric at a fever pitch.

“Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler proceeds like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go out and kill him in self-defense,” Arendt wrote. “This certainly is a little crude, but it works—as everybody will know who has ever watched how certain successful careerists eliminate competitors.”
We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book “Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror,” being “rendered helpless by overwhelming force.” This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms “the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning.”

To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality.

We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship—activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/american_psychosis_20170129 (http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/american_psychosis_20170129)





Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 07:00:08 PM
He wouldn't have been my pick, but I stand by by the statement that he was the lesser of the evils this time at bat. He is not a carbon copy of Scalia. He is big on 4th amendment rights, something the SCOTUS has been  busy dismantling.

Well, sure. You have never been one to alter your views easily.  ;) ;D

He is a disaster, just like the Trump Government. I stand by that view, a view that, even despite your protestations to the contrary, I think you DO NOT share.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 01, 2017, 07:01:09 PM
No wonder the UAE isn't bothered. They aren't on the list. My biggest problem with this order is that it's blatantly, stupidly aimed at the  WRONG countries. It isn't PC to put Saudi on the list, never mind they are 90% of the problem.

What about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Trump is a pussy. He can't make the hard calls.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 07:08:04 PM
No wonder the UAE isn't bothered. They aren't on the list. My biggest problem with this order is that it's blatantly, stupidly aimed at the  WRONG countries. It isn't PC to put Saudi on the list, never mind they are 90% of the problem.

What about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Trump is a pussy. He can't make the hard calls.


LOL!

WHY iaren't the Saudis on the list, eh? Do you want to talk about that? Don't tell me you don't know WHY they aren't on that list because I KNOW you know.

Just curious, Eddie but why were you the champion posting articles about Trump on this forum for the last YEAR (BEFORE the election  ;)  :evil4:) when nobody was really interested in what that cheap evil clown had to say?  I'm sure he and Bannon are grateful to you for all that free advertising to KEEP TRUMP'S NAME in front of people's eyes....

Congratulations on your successful propaganda efforts. The far right wing can be proud of you.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 07:08:29 PM
He wouldn't have been my pick, but I stand by by the statement that he was the lesser of the evils this time at bat. He is not a carbon copy of Scalia. He is big on 4th amendment rights, something the SCOTUS has been busy dismantling.

It's true that the recent SCOTUS has given short shrift to the 4th amendment.  I'm not familiar with Gorsuch's record on such, but can't help wondering about a fella who prizes any part of the Bill of Rights over any other part of it.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 07:13:11 PM

Just curious, Eddie but why were you the champion posting articles about Trump on those forum for the last YEAR (BEFORE the election  ;)  :evil4:) when nobody was really interested in what that cheap evil clown had to say?  I'm sure he and Bannon are grateful to you for all that free advertising to KEEP TRUMP'S NAME in front of people's eyes....

Congratulations on your successful propaganda efforts. The far right wing can be proud of you.

Misdirected anger / resentment here.  Eddie is certainly not a supporter of Trump, nor has he ever been.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: agelbert on February 01, 2017, 07:33:01 PM

Just curious, Eddie but why were you the champion posting articles about Trump on those forum for the last YEAR (BEFORE the election  ;)  :evil4:) when nobody was really interested in what that cheap evil clown had to say?  I'm sure he and Bannon are grateful to you for all that free advertising to KEEP TRUMP'S NAME in front of people's eyes....

Congratulations on your successful propaganda efforts. The far right wing can be proud of you.

Misdirected anger / resentment here.  Eddie is certainly not a supporter of Trump, nor has he ever been.
What makes you say that? I'm not angry. I just stated a fact. I watched Eddie do that for a year and kept scratching my head about it. Eddie doesn't deny he is right winger. What's your problem, JRM?

Have you ever seen how Eddie comes down on left wing stuff? Talk about mockery (Leon Trotsky type snipes come up reflexively) and he does get quite exercised about "fighting to defend Capitalism". YET, you never labelled THAT as "misdirected anger", did you? How come? aren't we all supposed judge each other equally?

Or are some MORE EQUAL than others? And if a fellow like me has the temerity to question anybody's sainthood, why do I get labelled as "too sensitive" or having "misdirected anger". Take your time and don't rush your answer.  ;)

Reasonably speaking, someone who thinks the USA is falling into a Fascist dictatorship should not be posting about the future behavior of some right wing whacko like the latest Trump SCOTUS pick as a ho hum type of thing to be studied and commented on but not to get too excited about.

The fact is, JRM, you can tell how somebody REALLY feels about things by their FAILURE to get exercised about certain types of politics. If you haven't noticed, it's because you aren't paying attention. For example, that CRAP about a "muslim" doing the Quebec shooting. WHO in this forum jumped out there to agree with me that Trump DIRECTLY caused this crap (it WAS a WHITE NATIONALIST!) and the propaganda LIE through Fox news. Uh, nobody.

YET, you come at me with this bit of irrelevance when I am pointing out a fact. There is a propaganda war going on. Too many times I watch people PRETEND to side a certain way on an issue but notice they simply have energy for OTHER issues of far less importance. Actions speak, BUT SO DO INACTIONS.

And JRM, I am disappointed in you for not celebrating the fact that the FOX news item demonizing muslims was proven to be a lie.  :(
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 08:11:41 PM
To repeat.

Gorsuch is a done deal, there is no way he will be rejected.  He's got all the right credentials and pedigree.  It's not going to change the flavor of the SCOTUS much, he's similar to Scalia.  The real issues come with the next couple of croaks or retirements.

On the Immigration issue, once again His Trumpness can resolve all questions of discrimination simply by outlawing immigration entirely.  This would also save a lot of money, since you could vastly cut down the paperwork processing of all those immigrants.

On why the Saudis aren't on the list, it's because Oil Ministers from the House of Saud have to make regular trips to Energy conferences here in the FSoA.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 08:16:10 PM
And JRM, I am disappointed in you for not celebrating the fact that the FOX news item demonizing muslims was proven to be a lie.  :(

Gosh, Agelbert.... There's so much going on, and -- to my eyes and ears -- this flurry is not easy to keep track of or make sense of ... and we celebrate and grieve where and when we can or must.

I despise Fox as Faux news -- as bullshit, fakery... propaganda.  I never should have linked to their "news" story about the Quebec murders. It was the ONLY time I can remember that I posted anything from FAUX.  But at the time I posted it was the only news agency claiming any grasp of the very fresh story.  I smelled fish, but trusted that the truth would eventually come out -- as it did.  I CELEBRATED that, that the truth came out and -- once again -- Faux turned out to be bullshit.  I'll never make the mistake of linking to those bastards again, you can be sure.  At least not  without an attached note sayin "This is probably bullshit".   (My "celebration" didn't involve baking a cake and lighting candles.  But there is a kind of war on here, or have you not noticed?  I call it "shock and awe politics".  It's difficult enough to sustain a life of any kind and pay attention to all of this shit.

Eddie is neither a right nor a left winger. Nor is he a centrist.  He's what I'd call an "odd duck," politically.  I think of him as a very sincere person, and also a person of genuine good will.  He's basically a kind man, and a good man. We don't agree on all things, obviously, but I'd not have a "yes man" as a true friend anyway.   .... I think our dear Eddie simply HATES politics and largely resents having to pay it any attention at all -- since it is the arena of pure bullshit, generally.

I'm far left of most people, and probably even our dear friend, Eddie.  But I'm also politically irrelevant.   For now.   trump may -- strangely -- cause or trigger a shift in which a far left nut job like me may become relevant.  Eddie would not hold his breath on that; and neither will I.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 08:26:28 PM
WHO in this forum jumped out there to agree with me that Trump DIRECTLY caused this crap (it WAS a WHITE NATIONALIST!) and the propaganda LIE through Fox news. Uh, nobody.

I knew something was at least odd, if not also fishy.  I smelled the scent of fish in the air, and said so -- but not strongly at first.  Because I didn't have many facts, and wanted to see what the hell was going on.  I was not there as a reporter myself.  I had no access to anyone who was....  I'm not always all that interested in speculation and guessing.  Sometimes I'll take a stab at guessing; sometimes not.  More than ever, I'm interested in facts. These are trying times for facts. >sigh<
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 01, 2017, 08:35:41 PM
Have you ever seen how Eddie comes down on left wing stuff?

He seems to me an equal opportunity guy when it comes to "coming down on" political views.  He comes down hard on folks left, right and center -- and all spaces in between -- and with equal degrees of curmudgeon-liness for all.

He's more cynical than I.  But he probably has good reason for it.  I'm no optimist, for sure. But I'm a hope junkie; I admit it.  It makes getting out of bed    ...     possible.  Without hope I'd not even bother.  I'd go live in the wilderness and eat bark and berries and squirrels....   If trump gets his way, I probably will.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 01, 2017, 08:46:43 PM
I'd go live in the wilderness and eat bark and berries and squirrels....   If trump gets his way, I probably will.

If Trumpty-Dumpty gets his way, there will be no wilderness left to go to, and no bark, berries or squirrels either.

RE
Title: Presidential Executive Orders And The Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?
Post by: RE on February 02, 2017, 04:07:18 AM
Make a big mess?

RE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-schultz/presidential-executive-or_b_14544996.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-schultz/presidential-executive-or_b_14544996.html)

Presidential Executive Orders And The Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?
02/01/2017 07:45 am ET | Updated 18 hours ago

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/5067328/images/n-TRUMP-SIGNS-628x314.jpg)

David Schultz Author; Political Science Professor, Hamline University
Carlos Barria / Reuters

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.

Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.

The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1, which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.

Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule-making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.

With the exception of President William Henry Harrison, who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.

From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama 276. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) maintains a list of all executive orders.

In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility companies, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, U.S.; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.

While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Picard able simply to say “make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward, any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.

Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases, these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.
Title: "Eddie doesn't deny he is right winger." -- says agelbert
Post by: JRM on February 02, 2017, 11:26:47 AM

Just curious, Eddie but why were you the champion posting articles about Trump on those forum for the last YEAR (BEFORE the election  ;)  :evil4:) when nobody was really interested in what that cheap evil clown had to say?  I'm sure he and Bannon are grateful to you for all that free advertising to KEEP TRUMP'S NAME in front of people's eyes....

Congratulations on your successful propaganda efforts. The far right wing can be proud of you.

Misdirected anger / resentment here.  Eddie is certainly not a supporter of Trump, nor has he ever been.
What makes you say that? I'm not angry. I just stated a fact. I watched Eddie do that for a year and kept scratching my head about it. Eddie doesn't deny he is right winger. What's your problem, JRM?

Have you ever seen how Eddie comes down on left wing stuff? Talk about mockery (Leon Trotsky type snipes come up reflexively) and he does get quite exercised about "fighting to defend Capitalism". YET, you never labelled THAT as "misdirected anger", did you? How come? aren't we all supposed judge each other equally?

Or are some MORE EQUAL than others? And if a fellow like me has the temerity to question anybody's sainthood, why do I get labelled as "too sensitive" or having "misdirected anger". Take your time and don't rush your answer.  ;)

Reasonably speaking, someone who thinks the USA is falling into a Fascist dictatorship should not be posting about the future behavior of some right wing whacko like the latest Trump SCOTUS pick as a ho hum type of thing to be studied and commented on but not to get too excited about.

The fact is, JRM, you can tell how somebody REALLY feels about things by their FAILURE to get exercised about certain types of politics. If you haven't noticed, it's because you aren't paying attention. For example, that CRAP about a "muslim" doing the Quebec shooting. WHO in this forum jumped out there to agree with me that Trump DIRECTLY caused this crap (it WAS a WHITE NATIONALIST!) and the propaganda LIE through Fox news. Uh, nobody.

YET, you come at me with this bit of irrelevance when I am pointing out a fact. There is a propaganda war going on. Too many times I watch people PRETEND to side a certain way on an issue but notice they simply have energy for OTHER issues of far less importance. Actions speak, BUT SO DO INACTIONS.

And JRM, I am disappointed in you for not celebrating the fact that the FOX news item demonizing muslims was proven to be a lie.  :(
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 02, 2017, 12:34:03 PM
Did you bump this up for me?

I read it last night and decided not to respond. I suppose I am to the right of AG, since he's very far on the bleeding edge of the left. I consider the whole Left v. Right paradigm to be fairly irrelevant anymore since all sides serve the corporate masters. As I've said, many times now, I don''t think it matters if you have a social democracy or a monarchy. What matters is having people in charge who are genuinely benevolent, which we haven't had in an awful long time, if ever.

I do believe in protecting the environment and cutting our dependence on fossil fuels, and many of the same things AG believes in, and I would love to see universal health care. I find Trump to be scary, and American politics to be sickening.

Honestly, I think AG's problem with me is two-fold. On one hand he takes every comment I leave on his threads as an attack, which I never intend for them to be...and second, he just has a big problem with high earning professionals. Like RE, he hates dentists as a group because of his own personal experiences.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 02, 2017, 01:07:28 PM
Did you bump this up for me?

Yes, and I'm glad you responded.  I actually like both of you guys, and that's why I did.  He seemed to treat you unfairly with his words.  I won't say that's "sad," 'cause trump ruined that word for me. He places it at the end of sentences like this.  Sad.   Which itself is sad.  Sad.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 02, 2017, 01:22:22 PM
I think we humans are prone to act out our anger and resentment toward the real bullies and assholes against those who more properly ought to be either our friends or our allies.  I think this is an example of that.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 02, 2017, 01:25:52 PM
I do not feel that I posted anything here during the election cycle that was calculated to be in support of Trump.

I found the Scott Adams stuff to be relevant and informative. I wanted to understand Trump. To me he was a dark horse, and a little hard to parse. I was blindsided when he won.

I wrote many disparaging posts about H.Clinton, because I found her disgusting. But in the end I actually did vote for her. My reasoning is hard to explain.

Basically I was afraid that the situation would end up being the exact reverse of what happened. I thought Hillary might win the election but lose the popular vote, and I hoped a Clinton vote would keep that from happening. My concern was that Trump supporters would get violent in such a circumstance. In retrospect, it appears my concern was misplaced.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 02, 2017, 02:32:44 PM
Basically I was afraid that the situation would end up being the exact reverse of what happened. I thought Hillary might win the election but lose the popular vote, and I hoped a Clinton vote would keep that from happening. My concern was that Trump supporters would get violent in such a circumstance. In retrospect, it appears my concern was misplaced.

Yeah. It was sensible enough a thought.  trump and his supporters, after all, were violence advocates before the election ... and continue to be.  Neither would have been (or are) good for the job.  To say the least.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 02, 2017, 04:44:30 PM
Like RE, he hates dentists as a group because of his own personal experiences.

I already explained the reasons, and that's only a small part of it.  That statement is untrue. I will not go into it again.  Let's stay off that topic please.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 04, 2017, 12:38:40 AM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-order (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-order)

 America
Federal Judge Stays Trump Travel Order, But Many Visas Already Revoked

February 3, 20174:42 PM ET

Rebecca Hersher

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/02/03/ap_17034003036168-7cf9a43034194af3672459a9505cf383cae0f5f4-s800-c85.jpg)
Ali Vayeghan (left), an Iranian citizen with a valid U.S. visa, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday after initially being turned away. He was allowed to come back under a federal judge's order.
Damian Dovarganes/AP

Updated at 10:40 p.m. ET

A federal judge in Seattle has issued a nationwide temporary stay against President Trump's executive order that prevented citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Judge James Robart acted to stop implementation of the order while a case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota is heard.

The White House issued a statement Friday night, saying the Justice Department will appeal the Seattle judge's action:
Where Does Your Member Of Congress Stand On Trump's Immigration Order?
Politics
Where Does Your Member Of Congress Stand On Trump's Immigration Order?
Trump's Executive Order On Immigration, Annotated
Politics
Trump's Executive Order On Immigration, Annotated

    "At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people.

    "As the law states, 'Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.' "

The White House soon amended the statement, deleting the word "outrageous."

The State Department said earlier Friday that it had already revoked some 60,000 visas, so even if the stay survives appellate review, it's not clear whether many travelers from those countries will be immediately free to enter the country.

The State Department said today "roughly 60,000 individuals' visas were provisionally revoked" as a result of Trump's Jan. 27 executive order barring refugees from seven countries.

That number is considerably lower than the number given by a Justice Department attorney, who said today in federal court in Virginia that 100,000 visas were revoked as a result of the order, as Carmel Delshad of NPR station WAMU reported.

Both numbers are much larger than the figure provided by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this week. Kevin McAleenan, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told reporters on Tuesday that 721 people with visas had not been allowed to board airplanes to the U.S. in the first 72 hours after the order went into effect. An additional 1,135 people with visas were granted waivers to enter the country, he said.

The 100,000 figure came out during a hearing for two lawful permanent residents from Yemen who filed a lawsuit after arriving at Dulles International Airport last Saturday. The two men allege they were detained and coerced into giving up their immigrant visas before being put on a return flight to Ethiopia, Delshad reported.

"U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said that it was clear to her the temporary travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries went into effect too quickly, and not a lot of thought went into it," and she issued a seven-day extension of a temporary order barring the deportation of green card holders from Dulles Airport, Delshad reported.

The executive order bans people from traveling to the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for three months, suspends new-refugee admissions for 120 days and bars Syrian refugees indefinitely.

State Department spokesman Will Cocks says the executive order doesn't mean a visa holder already in the U.S. is in the country illegally.

Asked, by way of example, about a hypothetical Iranian student currently in the U.S., he said such a student "likely has a visa that could have been revoked. However this has no impact on legal status on those in the U.S. So they are not here illegally."

New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, Minnesota and Washington state all have sued the federal government regarding the order. Eric Schneiderman, the New York state attorney general, described the order signed a week ago as "unconstitutional, unlawful, and fundamentally un-American," reported The Guardian.
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty Phone Calls (SNL Version)
Post by: RE on February 05, 2017, 02:17:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/a4HJwwyOtow
Title: Trump Clashes Early With Courts, Portending Years of Legal Battles
Post by: RE on February 05, 2017, 06:43:29 PM
Politics
Trump Clashes Early With Courts, Portending Years of Legal Battles

By PETER BAKERFEB. 5, 2017

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/06/us/06ban/06legal-master768.jpg)
President Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on Friday. He has quickly pushed into a confrontation with the courts as he tests the limits of executive power. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump is barreling into a confrontation with the courts barely two weeks after taking office, foreshadowing years of legal battles as an administration determined to disrupt the existing order presses the boundaries of executive power.

Lawyers for the administration were ordered to submit a brief on Monday defending Mr. Trump’s order temporarily banning refugees from around the world and all visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. An appeals court in California refused on Sunday to reinstate the ban after a lower court blocked it.

As people from the countries targeted by Mr. Trump struggled to make their way to the United States while they could, the president for the second day in a row expressed rage at the judge in the case, this time accusing him of endangering national security. Vice President Mike Pence defended the president’s tone, but lawyers and lawmakers of both parties said Mr. Trump’s comments reflected a lack of respect for the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Late in the day, Mr. Trump took to Twitter to pre-emptively blame the judge and the judiciary for what the president suggested would be a future terrorist attack.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.

    Trump Says Health Law Replacement May Not Be Ready Until Next Year
    FEB 5
    Jim Mattis Seeks to Soothe Tensions in Japan and South Korea
    FEB 5
    Scott Pruitt Is Seen Cutting the E.P.A. With a Scalpel, Not a Cleaver
    FEB 5
    Trump’s F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules
    FEB 5
    Where Trump’s Travel Ban Stands
    FEB 5

See More »

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Mr. Trump wrote, a day after referring to the “so-called judge” in the case. “If something happens blame him and court system.”

Even before the latest post, Republicans joined Democrats in chiding him. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said it was “best not to single out judges.”

“We all get disappointed from time to time,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think it is best to avoid criticizing judges individually.”

The White House offered no evidence for Mr. Trump’s suggestion that potential terrorists would now pour over the border because of the judge’s order. Since Sept. 11, 2001, no American has been killed in a terrorist attack on American soil by anyone who immigrated from any of the seven countries named in Mr. Trump’s order.

The impassioned debate over the immigration order brought to the fore issues at the heart of the Trump presidency. A businessman with no experience in public office, Mr. Trump has shown in his administration’s opening days that he favors an action-oriented approach with little regard for the two other branches of government. While Congress, controlled by Republicans, has deferred, the judiciary may emerge as the major obstacle for Mr. Trump.
Politics By DAVE HORN, MEG FELLING and DAPHNE RUSTOW 2:13
Fact Check: Trump’s Immigration Order
Video
Fact Check: Trump’s Immigration Order

President Trump blocked travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, and cut refugee admissions by more than half. We checked the facts. By DAVE HORN, MEG FELLING and DAPHNE RUSTOW on Publish Date February 3, 2017. Photo by Al Drago/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

    embed

    ShareTweet

Democrats and some Republicans said Mr. Trump’s attack on the courts would color the battle over the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as well as the president’s relationship with Congress.

Other presidents have clashed with the judiciary. The Supreme Court invalidated parts of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, forced Richard M. Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes and rejected Bill Clinton’s bid to delay a sexual harassment lawsuit.

The last two presidents battled with courts repeatedly over the limits of their power. The judiciary ruled that George W. Bush overstepped his bounds in denying due process to terrorism suspects and that Barack Obama assumed power he did not have to allow millions of unauthorized immigrants to stay in the country.

Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said the ruling by a Federal District Court in Washington state blocking Mr. Trump’s order resembled a ruling by a Texas district court stopping Mr. Obama from proceeding with his own immigration order.

But rarely, if ever, has a president this early in his tenure, and with such personal invective, battled the courts. Mr. Trump, Mr. Fried said, is turning everything into “a soap opera” with overheated attacks on the judge. “There are no lines for him,” said Mr. Fried, who teaches at Harvard Law School and voted against Mr. Trump. “There is no notion of, this is inappropriate, this is indecent, this is unpresidential.”

Other Republicans brushed off the attacks, noting that judges have lifetime tenure that protects them from criticism. But even some Republicans said Mr. Trump’s order raised valid legal questions for the courts.

“If I were in the White House, I’d feel better about my position if the ban or moratorium or whatever you call it were based on an actual attack or threat,” former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who served under Mr. Bush, said in an interview. Still, he said, when it comes to noncitizens overseas, “the executive has enjoyed great deference from the courts.”

Judge James Robart, a Federal District Court judge in Seattle appointed by Mr. Bush, on Friday issued a nationwide suspension of Mr. Trump’s order while its legality was debated. The administration quickly asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overrule the judge, but it refused early Sunday and instead ordered the government to file a brief on Monday. The quick briefing schedule indicated that the appeals court could issue a ruling on the merits of the president’s order within days.

In the meantime, refugees vetted by the government can proceed to the United States, as can any travelers with approved visas from the seven targeted nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

Still, widespread confusion and anger were reported at overseas airports on Sunday. Unsure which orders to follow, airlines stopped even some of the people named in the lawsuits who were technically cleared to come to the country, according to a government official.

The assertion of broad latitude by the president in areas of national security resembles the struggles of the Bush years, when in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks the administration claimed sometimes sweeping power in the name of fighting terrorism.

Jack Goldsmith, who as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Bush argued that some of the initial orders went too far and forced them to be rolled back, said on Sunday that there were similarities. “But Bush’s legal directives were not as sloppy as Trump’s,” he said. “And Trump’s serial attacks on judges and the judiciary take us into new territory. The sloppiness and aggressiveness of the directives, combined with the attacks on judges, put extra pressure on judges to rule against Trump.”

This was not the first time Mr. Trump has castigated a judge who ruled against him. As a candidate last year, Mr. Trump asserted that Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, who was presiding over a fraud lawsuit by former students of Trump University, had a conflict of interest because his family was of Mexican heritage and he therefore would be biased because of Mr. Trump’s promise to build a border wall.

Such comments from a sitting president, however, were unusual and triggered consternation in the legal community. Bartholomew J. Dalton, the president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, called Mr. Trump’s “insulting language” inappropriate.

“It is wrong for the chief executive of the executive branch to demean a member of the judiciary with such language,” Mr. Dalton said in a statement. “This undermines judicial independence, which is the backbone to our constitutional democracy.”

Senators of both parties appearing on Sunday talk shows concurred. “I’ll be honest, I don’t understand language like that,” Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, said on “This Week” on ABC. “We don’t have so-called judges. We don’t have so-called senators. We don’t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

“The president is not a dictator,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The framers of our Constitution wanted a strong Congress for the very reason that most of these kinds of things should be done within the scope of lawmaking. This is done within the scope of executive power.”

It fell to Mr. Pence to defend Mr. Trump. “Well, look, the president of the United States has every right to criticize the other two branches of government. And we have a long tradition of that in this country,” he said on “Meet the Press” on NBC.

“The judge’s actions in this case,” he added, “making decisions about American foreign policy and national security, it’s just very frustrating to the president, to our whole administration, to millions of Americans who want to see judges that will uphold the law and recognize the authority the president of the United States has under the Constitution to manage who comes into this country.”

Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.
Title: Sean Spicer Press Conference (SNL Version)
Post by: RE on February 05, 2017, 10:52:29 PM
The SNL writers are just having a FIELD DAY with Trumpty-Dumpty!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

http://www.youtube.com/v/UWuc18xISwI
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty International Travel Guide Map
Post by: RE on February 05, 2017, 11:08:46 PM
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*SGniTXI1xtmiH8yNZ11n6g.png)

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 06, 2017, 07:36:04 PM
In an incredible act of rudeness, the Speaker of the Commons goes out of his way to put himself on record as opposing Trump speaking to Parliament.  Have they all taken leave of their senses?

https://www.rt.com/uk/376509-speaker-bercow-trump-parliament/ (https://www.rt.com/uk/376509-speaker-bercow-trump-parliament/)
Trump should not address UK parliament - House of Commons speaker
6 Feb, 2017

John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, has voiced strong opposition to US President Donald Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during his state visit to the UK because he said "opposition to racism and sexism" are "hugely important considerations"

In a forceful statement, Bercow told MPs that being invited to address parliament was "not an automatic right" but "an earned honor."

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Bercow told his fellow MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."

"We value our relationship with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker.

"However, as far as this place [the House of Commons] is concerned I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons."

Whether Trump should address the UK parliament has been a source of heated debate. Bercow said he was one of the three “keyholders” to Westminster Hall and he will not permit an invitation to the parliament to be made in his name.

The statement comes following Prime Minister Theresa May’s invitation to Trump to make a state visit to the UK. May revealed that Trump will visit Britain before the end of the year.

Several politicians, including Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have said that the visit should be canceled until Trump repeals his executive order which bans people from seven majority Muslim nations from travelling to the US. Some 40,000 people marched in London against the so-called “Muslim ban” and 1.8 million people have signed an online petition objecting to the visit.

Bercow was a Conservative MP before taking up the impartial speaker role which he has held since 2009. His words were met with a chorus of spontaneous applause from around the chamber. Speaking after Bercow’s statement, stalwart Labour MP Dennis Skinner said: "Further to that point of order, two words: Well done.” Corbyn also took to Twitter to commend Bercow.

    Well said John Bercow. We must stand up for our country's values. Trump's State Visit should not go ahead. https://t.co/nd9NWpwCeY (https://t.co/nd9NWpwCeY)
    — Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) February 6, 2017

Trump himself is reportedly not interested in speaking in parliament and instead wants to focus on the pomp and ceremony the visit will entail. The Guardian cite government officials in saying that Trump has expressed no interest in speaking at Westminster. However, it’s understood that he is attracted to “high visibility visits with key members of the Royal Family.”
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 06, 2017, 08:02:29 PM
In an incredible act of rudeness, the Speaker of the Commons goes out of his way to put himself on record as opposing Trump speaking to Parliament.  Have they all taken leave of their senses?

The Speaker is just making Political Hay.  Trump doesn't even want to make a speach to Parliament

Quote
Trump himself is reportedly not interested in speaking in parliament and instead wants to focus on the pomp and ceremony the visit will entail. The Guardian cite government officials in saying that Trump has expressed no interest in speaking at Westminster. However, it’s understood that he is attracted to “high visibility visits with key members of the Royal Family.”

All Trump cares about is getting Photo Ops with the Royal Family.  What would be the point of speaking to the MPs?  They would just Boo him.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 06, 2017, 08:15:51 PM
But it has NEVER been that the Commons have boo'ed a President, never.  Even someone like Corbyn wouldn't actually boo him, he might not turn up, or more likely sit there stoney-faced.

Something is different.  Maybe Rupert Murdoch has told all his British and Australian editors to drum up a "I hate Trump" campaign.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 06, 2017, 08:33:41 PM
But it has NEVER been that the Commons have boo'ed a President, never.  Even someone like Corbyn wouldn't actually boo him, he might not turn up, or more likely sit there stoney-faced.

Something is different.  Maybe Rupert Murdoch has told all his British and Australian editors to drum up a "I hate Trump" campaign.

They'va also never told a POTUS he's not welcome to speak either.

His Trumpness is so highly unpopular in Europe that none of the Pols want to be NEAR him.  The only ones who can withstand any association with him are the Royals.  For Trumpty-Dumpty, Photo Ops walking with the Queen makes him look statesman like and Presidential.  However, as we all know, her Queeness doesn't make any policy, she's just a filthy rich figurehead.  Which is what Trumpty-Dumpty is also.

RE
Title: What if Trump is a vehicle for Bannon’s ideological project?
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 06:29:27 AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/what-if-trump-is-a-vehicle-for-bannons-ideological-project/news-story/277b55fd765540222f2beb5449beb2fb (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/what-if-trump-is-a-vehicle-for-bannons-ideological-project/news-story/277b55fd765540222f2beb5449beb2fb)

WORLD COMMENTARY
What if Trump is a vehicle for Bannon’s ideological project?

(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/f4d88fbd6a8bad3901ed7e9422049a30?width=650)

Donald Trump’s fate will not weigh heavily on Steve Bannon.

    Jacek Rostowski
    The Australian
    12:00AM February 8, 2017
    Save
        Share on Facebook
        Share on Twitter
        Share on email
        Share more...

In the weeks since Donald Trump’s inauguration as US President, it has become clear that he intends to roll back to the starting block the progressive egalitarian agenda that is commonly associated with political correctness — not just in the US, but globally.

Stephen Bannon, Trump’s White House Svengali and former CEO of the extreme-right Breitbart News, has long pursued this ideological project, and we now know that what he or Trump says must be taken both seriously and literally.

Trump’s transition was initially reassuring, because he nominated many undeniably serious (if also seriously well-heeled) people to his cabinet. But after the inauguration all hell broke loose as Trump and Bannon began to implement their project in earnest.

First, Trump appointed Bannon to the National Security Council’s highest body, the principals committee. Then he nominated Ted Malloch, an obscure business studies professor at the University of Reading, in England, as US ambassador to the EU. Malloch recently expressed a desire to “short the euro”, and predicted that the currency would not survive another 18 months. Trump has also increased the likelihood of a trade war with Mexico, and he has been willing to confront major US corporations over his executive order banning travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The ideological project that Trump and Bannon will seek to carry out could have far-reaching geopolitical and economic implications that should worry not only progressives, but also dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like me. To understand how far they are willing to go, one must understand their ultimate aims.

Most disturbingly, Trump and Bannon’s agenda seems likely to entail policies to weaken, destabilise, or even ultimately dismantle the EU. No motive other than ideology can explain Trump’s open hostility to the bloc, his bizarre ambassadorial appointment, or his question to EU president Donald Tusk: “What country is next to leave?”

In conventional geostrategic terms, the EU is almost a costless extension of US political and military power. Owing to NATO’s significant military superiority, and the EU’s role as a barrier to Russian expansion, the US can avoid becoming entangled in a “hot war” with Russia. Meanwhile, the EU — together with Japan — is a dependable economic and military ally, whose friendship allows the US to speak for the “international community”.

There are no circumstances in which dismantling the Western international order is in America’s national interest — even when perceived through a nationalist lens. A truly “America first” administration would rightly expect its allies to pull their weight in NATO, and to defer to US foreign policies on non-European issues. But it would never gratuitously dismantle an essentially free multiplier of US power, as Trump’s foreign policy threatens to do.

If I am right about Trump and Bannon’s ideological agenda, we can expect them to find a way to support far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election this year, and to encourage a “hard Brexit” for Britain (only to leave it in the lurch afterwards). Trump is likely to lift the sanctions the US imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bannon are ideological twins.

We should not put much stock in any security assurances Secretary of Defence James Mattis may have offered to South Korea and Japan last week. Such promises are worth as little as Trump’s pledge to Polish President Andrzej Duda that “Poland can count on America”.

Americans should be prepared to watch the administration dismiss officials who do not defend its agenda, and disregard court orders that inhibit its actions. We have already seen signs of this when complaints emerged that immigration agents in New York were ignoring a federal judge’s emergency stay on Trump’s travel ban.

The prospects for business are just as sobering. Sooner or later, Trump’s destabilising foreign policy will lead to global economic turbulence, uncertainty, and reduced investment — even barring trade wars. And domestically, his weakening of the rule of law will negate any economic benefits from tax cuts and deregulation.

Implementing this project is undoubtedly a dangerous strategy for Trump. By polarising the US public to such an extent, he and the Republicans could suffer defeat in the 2018 midterm elections or in the 2020 presidential election; and he could even expose himself to the risk of impeachment.

There are two possible explanations for why Trump would take these risks. The first is that divisiveness has worked for him. Politicians tend to stick with what works — until it fails.

The second explanation is that Bannon is calling the political shots, and is more interested in building a permanent populist “movement” than he is in getting Trump re-elected. If Bannon wants to transform the US political landscape, an impeached or defeated Trump could become an ideal martyr for his movement.

That may not bode well for Trump himself, but, in this scenario, Trump’s fate will not weigh heavily on Bannon, who has set his sights on achieving goals that will leave the US and the world very different from how he and his putative boss found them.

Jack Rostowski was Poland’s finance minister and deputy prime minister from 2007 to 2013.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 03:13:33 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters? 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 03:18:57 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Head of Breitbart Newz, complete rightie wingnut.  Google him.

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 03:26:40 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Head of Breitbart Newz, complete rightie wingnut.  Google him.

RE

Google him?  Why?  Tell me why I should give a shit about him is all I'm saying. 

Cause I don't. 

What, he's another Corporatocracy Agent in charge?  And?  There are plenty of those guys. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 03:39:17 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Head of Breitbart Newz, complete rightie wingnut.  Google him.

RE

Google him?  Why?  Tell me why I should give a shit about him is all I'm saying.

You're the one who asked who he was.  If you didn't give a shit, why did you ask the question? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 03:40:50 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Head of Breitbart Newz, complete rightie wingnut.  Google him.

RE

Google him?  Why?  Tell me why I should give a shit about him is all I'm saying.

You're the one who asked who he was.  If you didn't give a shit, why did you ask the question? ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

For the sake of conversation I guess.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 03:46:56 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon)

Quote
Stephen Kevin "Steve" Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American political activist and businessman who is currently serving as the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist in the Donald Trump administration. In this capacity, since January 28, 2017, he has been a regular attendee to the Principals Committee of the National Security Council.[1]

Prior to assuming the White House position, Bannon was the chief executive officer of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.[2][3]

Before his political career, Bannon served as executive chair of Breitbart News, a far-right[Breitbart Called Far Right 1] news, opinion, and commentary website[13][14] which Bannon described in 2016 as "the platform for the alt-right".[Breitbart Associated With Alt Right 1] Bannon took leave of absence from Breitbart in order to work for the campaign.[22][23] After the election, he announced that he would resign from Breitbart.[22]

So Trumps right hand man is a fucking Nazi?

Isn't that what the alt-right is?  The new neo-nazi's without skin heads or Nazi paraphernalia all dressed up business like and what not.   
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 03:50:27 PM
Steve Bannon is one of the leading Pig Men in the New In Your Fucking Face Fascism in 'Merkah.  He's part of the neo-fascist Pig Parade which is "led" by mentally ill billionaires and millionaires.  He's part of the cancerous growth spewing sewer juice at the heart of Washington DC, which is the headquarters of the Billionaires and millionaires who seek to destroy any semblance of democracy or freedom for the sake of their billionaire buddies.

They are the festering wound at the heart of America's current festering wound.

They are the enemy of the people of the Earth. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 03:56:28 PM
The White House smells like a swamp.  A fetid, fly-strewn swamp of barf and diarrhea -- sulfurous and nauseating. 

A wall needs to be built around the White House in order to contain this mess. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 03:58:09 PM
Steve Bannon is one of the leading Pig Men in the New In Your Fucking Face Fascism in 'Merkah.  He's part of the neo-fascist Pig Parade which is "led" by mentally ill billionaires and millionaires.  He's part of the cancerous growth spewing sewer juice at the heart of Washington DC, which is the headquarters of the Billionaires and millionaires who seek to destroy any semblance of democracy or freedom for the sake of their billionaire buddies.

They are the festering wound at the heart of America's current festering wound.

They are the enemy of the people of the Earth.

And Nazi's to boot it seems.  Great.  Thanks for the introduction JRM  :)

I have a feeling that it's going to get violent in Merika soon.  I like 'Merkah though, I might adopt that spelling. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 04:00:27 PM
The White House smells like a swamp.  A fetid, fly-strewn swamp of barf and diarrhea -- sulfurous and nauseating. 

A wall needs to be built around the White House in order to contain this mess.

No shit...fucking Nazi's...I can't believe we literally have Nazi's in the White House now.  Have I died, and I'm living the last 6 minutes of consciousness, and this is some shit my twisted mind made up?  I mean this is reality now?  Nazi's in the White House. 

Holy shit...let me take that in for a bit. 
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 07, 2017, 04:47:56 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Until recently, he was sort of the Michael Moore of the Right, known for making videos that pushed the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-climate change, anti-evolution agenda of the religious right. He was also an investment banker who once worked for Goldman Sachs. He made some big money  in Hollywood, by buying the rights to Seinfeld re-runs.

That freed him up so he could turn his attention to public policy. He has support from some rich "libertarian" guys like Robert Mercer, who think we should repeal every government regulation on business there is, maybe reinstitute child labor so we can make America great again.

He matters because he's Trump's idea man. He also had a lot to do with telling Trump what to say to appeal to the angry people who ended up voting him in. He's smart...but unfortunately he has an agenda, one aimed at making a lot of changes, many of which are poorly considered.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 07, 2017, 04:55:37 PM
Who the fuck is Steve Bannon?

I've never heard that name before. 

Is there a reason why he matters?

Until recently, he was sort of the Michael Moore of the Right, known for making videos that pushed the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-climate change, anti-evolution agenda of the religious right. He was also an investment banker who once worked for Goldman Sachs. He made some big money  in Hollywood, by buying the rights to Seinfeld re-runs.

That freed him up so he could turn his attention to public policy. He has support from some rich "libertarian" guys like Robert Mercer, who think we should repeal every government regulation on business there is, maybe reinstitute child labor so we can make America great again.

He matters because he's Trump's idea man. He also had a lot to do with telling Trump what to say to appeal to the angry people who ended up voting him in. He's smart...but unfortunately he has an agenda, one aimed at making a lot of changes, many of which are poorly considered.

Sounds like he's Trumps Carl Rove.  My understanding is that Carl Rove was the brains of the Dubyah operation. 

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 04:57:08 PM
"Poorly considered" (Eddie)

That's a kind way of saying "really fucking stupid".
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 07, 2017, 05:41:31 PM
"Poorly considered" (Eddie)

That's a kind way of saying "really fucking stupid".

And ignorant. And mean.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 07, 2017, 05:48:53 PM
In one of his many videos, Bannon describes his policies as coming from the Tea Party.  For electoral purposes, that includes every kind of rat-bag fringe group, but once in power probably will focus more narrowly on what the Koch brothers and Trump want.  Somehow though they have to keep the wider circle happy too, probably by saying they wanted to do X but were prevented by their enemies.

So you will see tax cuts for the rich, cuts to welfare programs, a renegotiation of trade deals to give even more advantages to US companies, more military spending, more pressure on other countries to buy more US weapons, more attempts to weaken Chinese-Russian-Iranian influence, more regime changes.  Simply more of the same, until it can't go on any longer.

"Drain the swamp!" - what does that even mean?  How will we know it has (or hasn't) happened?
"Make America Great again!" - as great as when?  How will we know it has (or hasn't) happened?
It means "Hope and Change, yes, we can" stupid.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Trump's new White Tower Project:

Trump's White Tower
Trump's White Tower
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 06:55:25 PM
If we're going to understand trump, we must understand malignant narcissism.

The following videos are by different presenters, and are perhaps an okay place to begin to understand the malignant narcissist, what motivate them, and why they are so dangerous -- especially when in positions of political authority or power.

It's important to realize, as well, that trump has tended to surround himself (e.g., his appointees) with people who are very much like him in terms of lacking empathy and care for others, the natural world, etc....  Merely getting rid of one of them will not suffice, since they are generally all of a kind with one another.

America is in a very grave crisis!

Donald Trump - Malignant Narcissist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jho6y6XO9kg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jho6y6XO9kg)

How & Why Donald Trump Stole America. The Pathological / Malignant Narcissist. Expert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxNx711oR_M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxNx711oR_M)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 07, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Psychiatrist: Donald Trump's Narcissism is Dangerous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9K5sSjZ2I&t=360s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9K5sSjZ2I&t=360s)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 07:17:20 PM
America is in a very grave crisis!

Indeed, and so is the rest of the world.  Check out Vitoria in Espirito Santo in Brasil.  :o

http://www.youtube.com/v/qUEAYdO6Mfg

The Collapse of Industrial Civilization is a seriously grave crisis.

The Brazileiros got it a whole lot worse already than we do.

These are the Good Old Days here.

COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on February 07, 2017, 09:06:13 PM
Fred sobered up for a few moments and reminds us that had Trump been born in Indiana he would have become a car salesman.  Used cars.


(http://fredoneverything.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fredban.jpg)


Many Storms Gathering: Reflections on Trump
Posted on February 2, 2017 by Fred Reed

I bow (in case you were wondering) to no one in my loathing for the Clintons, the Establishment, the Beltway Insulates, political correctness, BLM, radical feminists, the controlled media, Obama, Wall Street, neocons, Social-Justice Look-at-Mes, and the New York Oligarchs. After the election, I figured, having no choice anyway, to see what Trump actually did. I have seen. America elected a dangerous curiosity.

Listen to Trump’s Secretary of State Tillerson, his representative, addressing Congress and ordering China around like a misbehaving twelve-year-old: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

This amounts to “Do what I say, or else.” It is an ultimatum, a thing to be used gingerly among big powers.  The only “else” is war. Yes, he was speaking unofficially, but his interventions are clear.

Ultimata are dangerous. They are insulting. They leave no room for preservation of dignity by compromise, by finding a way to give in without seeming to. They are a way to look for a fight. A Secretary of State who casually issues ultimata to huge and nuclear powers is a symptom of an executive branch  utterly out of control.

Tillerson’s combativeness is not a fluke. Vice President Bannon in The Independent “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Mr Bannon said on his radio show in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that.”

It also shows the danger of a President with no restrictions on his power to make war. In this respect, current Presidents are as autonomous as Roman emperors, having established that they can wage war at will.  Whether the country wants to go to war makes no difference.

FoxNews The US is  officially putting Iran “on notice” after its missile test.

The same truculence. The same sense of entitlement. Another war coming up. We would find out about it the day after it began.

A point apparently lost on the President is that we do not live in 1955. Then, it was a bully’s world. The carriers could easily have prevented sampans from going to islands and China had no hope of attacking the US navy or engaging in nuclear war. Today it can do both. While the US would “win” a conventional war, assuming that it remained conventional, the consequences would be unpredictable and the economic effects catastrophic.

Trump is extremely combative, erratic, apparently a bully, and responds to resistance by doubling down. To many of us, including me, this was  immensely satisfying when he told the press to bugger off, defied the Clinton-Wall Street-Beltway elites, and talked of putting the interests of America before those of big business.  The campaign was fine entertainment. Because so many were sick of the elites, he is President. Fun as a candidate, but in a President?

The same psychology of the gas-station lout appears in his approach to Mexico, where I live. In particular his insistence that Mexico pay for his wall is insulting, and deliberately so. He very evidently does not like Mexico.

Why?

He got screwed in a business deal in Mexico and has been hostile to the country ever since. Time published a list of Trump’s tweets on Mexico, a remarkable number of which expressed personal anger. For example, here he  conflates foreign policy and his personal affairs:

✔@realDonaldTrump I have a lawsuit in Mexico’s corrupt court system that I won but so far can’t collect. Don’t do business with Mexico!

Or:

@realDonaldTrump “The Mexican legal system is corrupt, as is much of Mexico. Pay me the money that is owed me now – and stop sending criminals over our border.”

Note the order of the demands.

This sounds like the pique–I won’t say “hissyfit”–of a man who does not respond well to not getting his way. And his relentless hostility to Mexico looks a lot like a quest for revenge.

The desire to humiliate and punish Mexico plays well with Americans angry at immigration and themselves hostile to Latinos. Personal vendettas do not seem a desirable basis for foreign policy.

 More of his hostility  seems to spring from  failed developments in Mexico, the Trump Ocean Resort Baja California, in which purchasers of expensive apartments lost large down payments when the developments were not built.

LA Times:

“All told, two years of aggressive marketing yielded $32.5 million in buyer deposits, every bit of it spent by the time Trump and his partners abandoned the project in early 2009 as the global economy was reeling. Most of the buyers sued them for fraud.”

Whether the reason for the failure was incompetence or a deliberate scam depends on who you talk to.

There was also Punta Arrecifes Resort that he wanted to build in Cozumel. It was to be a very high-dollar, exclusive place with airport, golf couture, and the like and, among other things, would have devastated an ecologically protected zone. Protests erupted, the mayor wanted an excessive bribe, and he didn’t get his way.

El Proceso:

“Para “acelerar” los trámites, el alcalde panista les pidió un “moche” de 20 millones de dólares. Directo, sin rodeos, el alcalde panista les indicó que ese era el precio para lograr el cambio de uso de suelo, pese a las protestas de los grupos ambientalistas.”

“To speed up” the paperwork, the Panista mayor tasked them for a bribe of $20 million. Directly, without beating around the bush, the mayor indicated that this was the price for changing the use of the land despite the protests of environmentalists.” My translation.

The bribe was more than Trump was willing to play. He took his football and went home. He is not above fraud or corruption, but didn’t like the price.

Wall Street Journal: “Trump settles fraud case against Trump University for $25M”

His blaming these failures on Mexican corruption doesn’t hold water. The corruption exists, yet countless American firms successfully do business in Mexico.

Petulant, self-interested, and childish. Much of what he says is adolescent. Over and over he speaks of Mexico sending criminals to America. How precisely does Mexico send criminals? By “Mexico” he presumably means the Mexican government, as who else might he mean? Does Presidente Peña Nieto go to a penitentiary and say, “You, Pepe, and Kike and, yeah, you, Luis, take these bus tickets, you criminal bastardos, and go to the United States and wreak havoc”? Is there a cabinet-level body to send criminals? El Departamento de Empaquetamiento de Cabrones? Perhaps “Mexico” puts stamps on criminals and drops them off at the post office.

The repeated assertion that Mexico is cheating the US, exploiting it, being unfair, (Oh! Poor widdle Colossus of the North) is either garishly ignorant, personally vindictive or, more likely, both. Mexico is governmentally weak, corrupt, and utterly under the thumb of the United States. Is NAFTA a Mexican plot against the US? Actually it forced Mexican farmers into competition with hopelessly superior American agriculture and drove them into the cities, where there are no jobs. Along the border American maquiladoras pay poor Mexicans miserably low wages. Mexico crawls with DEA agents forced on it from the north and loses countless lives fighting Americal’ls drug war. On and on.

We seem to have as President an unpredictable warlike draft dodger with a history of fraud suits who cannot distinguish between his personal grudges and foreign policy. Is this going to work?
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 09:13:50 PM
Fred sobered up for a few moments and reminds us that had Trump been born in Indiana he would have become a car salesman.  Used cars.

Might have been nice if Fred grasped this BEFORE Trumpty-Dumpty got elected and encouraed his readership NOT to vote for him (as Fred likely did).

RE
Title: Liz goes on the attack, and gets the Red Card
Post by: RE on February 07, 2017, 09:32:01 PM
Liz Warren is running for POTUS in 2020, there is no doubt.  She started her campaign already.  She's making headlines as a "firebrand".

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/07/republicans-vote-to-rebuke-elizabeth-warren-for-impugning-sessionss-character/?utm_term=.d23861a528d5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/07/republicans-vote-to-rebuke-elizabeth-warren-for-impugning-sessionss-character/?utm_term=.d23861a528d5)

Republicans vote to rebuke Elizabeth Warren, saying she impugned Sessions’s character


By Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe February 7 at 11:39 PM
McConnell interrupts Warren's speech opposing Sessions
Embed Share
Play Video1:07
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was stopped from speaking on the Senate floor about Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions on Feb. 7. "I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate," Warren said. (YouTube/Senator Elizabeth Warren)

Senate Republicans passed a party-line rebuke Tuesday night of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for a speech opposing attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, striking down her words for impugning the Alabama senator’s character.

In an extraordinarily rare move, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) interrupted Warren’s speech, in a near-empty chamber as debate on Sessions’s nomination heads toward a Wednesday evening vote, and said that she had breached Senate rules by reading past statements against Sessions from figures such as the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the late Coretta Scott King.

“The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama,” McConnell said, then setting up a series of roll-call votes on Warren’s conduct.

[Read the letter Coretta Scott King wrote opposing Sessions’s 1986 federal nomination]

It was the latest clash in the increasingly hostile debate over confirming President Trump’s Cabinet, during which Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to force through nominees without proper vetting. Democrats, unable to stop the confirmations that require simple majorities, have countered by using extreme delay tactics that have dragged out the process longer than any in history for a new president’s Cabinet.

The Democratic moves, including boycotting committee room votes on nominees last week and a round-the-clock debate Monday night before Tuesday’s confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, reached a boiling point during the debate over Sessions — which Democrats are vowing to continue overnight.

In setting up the votes to rebuke Warren, McConnell specifically cited portions of a letter that King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Sessions’s 1986 nomination to be a federal judge.

[Trump’s pick for attorney general is shadowed by race and history]

“Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens,” King wrote, referencing controversial prosecutions at the time that Sessions served as the U.S. attorney for Alabama. Earlier, Warren read from the 1986 statement of Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who led the opposition then against Sessions, including the Massachusetts Democrat’s concluding line: “He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department and he should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.”

The Senate voted, 49 to 43, strictly on party lines, to uphold the ruling that Warren violated Rule 19 of the Senate that says senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Pursuant to that rule, Warren was ordered to sit down and forbidden from speaking during the remainder of the debate on the nomination of Sessions.

“I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate,” Warren said after McConnell’s motion.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), a freshman who was presiding over the Senate at the time, issued a warning to Warren at that point, singling out Kennedy’s “disgrace” comment, and 25 minutes later McConnell came to the floor and set in motion the battle, citing the comments in the King letter as crossing the line.

Warren’s speech ended with a simple admonition from Daines: “The senator will take her seat.”

Later, McConnell defended his decision.

“Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” he said. “Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Other Democrats later came to her defense and tried to have King’s letter placed into the Senate record. But Republican senators quickly objected. They did so again when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the chamber’s only African American woman, asked that Warren be allowed to resume participation in the debate.

Warren, a liberal firebrand with a devoted national following whom some activists want to run for president in 2020, quickly took to social media and the airwaves to attack McConnell and Republicans for shutting down her speech.

Banned from reading King’s letter on the Senate floor, Warren instead went to a nearby room and read it aloud on Facebook Live.
Sen. Warren reads Coretta Scott King's letter about Jeff Sessions outside the Senate
Embed Share
Play Video15:29
After Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) struck down Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) attempt to read a letter from Coretta Scott King on the floor of the Senate during the debate on attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren read the letter outside the doors of the Senate and streamed it live. (Facebook/Sen. Elizabeth Warren)

The Daily 202 newsletter

A must-read morning briefing for decision-makers.

In a brief telephone interview with MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” a program watched loyally by many Warren devotees, she explained that “I’ve been red- carded on Sen. Sessions, I’m out of the game of the Senate floor. I don’t get to speak at all.”

Public reaction quickly intensified online. RedBubble.com, an online clothing website for independent designers, began selling a “She Persisted” T-shirt or sweatshirt — seizing on McConnell’s admonition of Warren. Democrats began using #LetLizSpeak on Twitter and posted copies of King’s letter on Facebook to draw more attention to Warren’s speech.

At least one other Democrat, Sen. Christopher Murphy (Conn.), hinted that he might try to pick up where Warren left off at some point overnight, saying on Twitter, “Go ahead and rule me out of order.”
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 08, 2017, 12:43:56 PM
Quote
Donald J. Trump - Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump


Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648


That sort of Twittering fits perfectly with what the psychologists say about malignant narcissists being unable to recognize truth or facts when doing so would reflect badly upon them.   trump simply can't believe he's not The Best, only better, more better.  Sad.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 08, 2017, 01:02:58 PM
FACT-CHECKER, FACT-CHECKER 🎳💚 Randy Rainbow Song Parody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaYDmJYE8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaYDmJYE8k)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Eddie on February 08, 2017, 01:10:59 PM
Fred sobered up for a few moments and reminds us that had Trump been born in Indiana he would have become a car salesman.  Used cars.


(http://fredoneverything.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fredban.jpg)


Many Storms Gathering: Reflections on Trump
Posted on February 2, 2017 by Fred Reed

I bow (in case you were wondering) to no one in my loathing for the Clintons, the Establishment, the Beltway Insulates, political correctness, BLM, radical feminists, the controlled media, Obama, Wall Street, neocons, Social-Justice Look-at-Mes, and the New York Oligarchs. After the election, I figured, having no choice anyway, to see what Trump actually did. I have seen. America elected a dangerous curiosity.

Listen to Trump’s Secretary of State Tillerson, his representative, addressing Congress and ordering China around like a misbehaving twelve-year-old: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

This amounts to “Do what I say, or else.” It is an ultimatum, a thing to be used gingerly among big powers.  The only “else” is war. Yes, he was speaking unofficially, but his interventions are clear.

Ultimata are dangerous. They are insulting. They leave no room for preservation of dignity by compromise, by finding a way to give in without seeming to. They are a way to look for a fight. A Secretary of State who casually issues ultimata to huge and nuclear powers is a symptom of an executive branch  utterly out of control.

Tillerson’s combativeness is not a fluke. Vice President Bannon in The Independent “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Mr Bannon said on his radio show in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that.”

It also shows the danger of a President with no restrictions on his power to make war. In this respect, current Presidents are as autonomous as Roman emperors, having established that they can wage war at will.  Whether the country wants to go to war makes no difference.

FoxNews The US is  officially putting Iran “on notice” after its missile test.

The same truculence. The same sense of entitlement. Another war coming up. We would find out about it the day after it began.

A point apparently lost on the President is that we do not live in 1955. Then, it was a bully’s world. The carriers could easily have prevented sampans from going to islands and China had no hope of attacking the US navy or engaging in nuclear war. Today it can do both. While the US would “win” a conventional war, assuming that it remained conventional, the consequences would be unpredictable and the economic effects catastrophic.

Trump is extremely combative, erratic, apparently a bully, and responds to resistance by doubling down. To many of us, including me, this was  immensely satisfying when he told the press to bugger off, defied the Clinton-Wall Street-Beltway elites, and talked of putting the interests of America before those of big business.  The campaign was fine entertainment. Because so many were sick of the elites, he is President. Fun as a candidate, but in a President?

The same psychology of the gas-station lout appears in his approach to Mexico, where I live. In particular his insistence that Mexico pay for his wall is insulting, and deliberately so. He very evidently does not like Mexico.

Why?

He got screwed in a business deal in Mexico and has been hostile to the country ever since. Time published a list of Trump’s tweets on Mexico, a remarkable number of which expressed personal anger. For example, here he  conflates foreign policy and his personal affairs:

✔@realDonaldTrump I have a lawsuit in Mexico’s corrupt court system that I won but so far can’t collect. Don’t do business with Mexico!

Or:

@realDonaldTrump “The Mexican legal system is corrupt, as is much of Mexico. Pay me the money that is owed me now – and stop sending criminals over our border.”

Note the order of the demands.

This sounds like the pique–I won’t say “hissyfit”–of a man who does not respond well to not getting his way. And his relentless hostility to Mexico looks a lot like a quest for revenge.

The desire to humiliate and punish Mexico plays well with Americans angry at immigration and themselves hostile to Latinos. Personal vendettas do not seem a desirable basis for foreign policy.

 More of his hostility  seems to spring from  failed developments in Mexico, the Trump Ocean Resort Baja California, in which purchasers of expensive apartments lost large down payments when the developments were not built.

LA Times:

“All told, two years of aggressive marketing yielded $32.5 million in buyer deposits, every bit of it spent by the time Trump and his partners abandoned the project in early 2009 as the global economy was reeling. Most of the buyers sued them for fraud.”

Whether the reason for the failure was incompetence or a deliberate scam depends on who you talk to.

There was also Punta Arrecifes Resort that he wanted to build in Cozumel. It was to be a very high-dollar, exclusive place with airport, golf couture, and the like and, among other things, would have devastated an ecologically protected zone. Protests erupted, the mayor wanted an excessive bribe, and he didn’t get his way.

El Proceso:

“Para “acelerar” los trámites, el alcalde panista les pidió un “moche” de 20 millones de dólares. Directo, sin rodeos, el alcalde panista les indicó que ese era el precio para lograr el cambio de uso de suelo, pese a las protestas de los grupos ambientalistas.”

“To speed up” the paperwork, the Panista mayor tasked them for a bribe of $20 million. Directly, without beating around the bush, the mayor indicated that this was the price for changing the use of the land despite the protests of environmentalists.” My translation.

The bribe was more than Trump was willing to play. He took his football and went home. He is not above fraud or corruption, but didn’t like the price.

Wall Street Journal: “Trump settles fraud case against Trump University for $25M”

His blaming these failures on Mexican corruption doesn’t hold water. The corruption exists, yet countless American firms successfully do business in Mexico.

Petulant, self-interested, and childish. Much of what he says is adolescent. Over and over he speaks of Mexico sending criminals to America. How precisely does Mexico send criminals? By “Mexico” he presumably means the Mexican government, as who else might he mean? Does Presidente Peña Nieto go to a penitentiary and say, “You, Pepe, and Kike and, yeah, you, Luis, take these bus tickets, you criminal bastardos, and go to the United States and wreak havoc”? Is there a cabinet-level body to send criminals? El Departamento de Empaquetamiento de Cabrones? Perhaps “Mexico” puts stamps on criminals and drops them off at the post office.

The repeated assertion that Mexico is cheating the US, exploiting it, being unfair, (Oh! Poor widdle Colossus of the North) is either garishly ignorant, personally vindictive or, more likely, both. Mexico is governmentally weak, corrupt, and utterly under the thumb of the United States. Is NAFTA a Mexican plot against the US? Actually it forced Mexican farmers into competition with hopelessly superior American agriculture and drove them into the cities, where there are no jobs. Along the border American maquiladoras pay poor Mexicans miserably low wages. Mexico crawls with DEA agents forced on it from the north and loses countless lives fighting Americal’ls drug war. On and on.

We seem to have as President an unpredictable warlike draft dodger with a history of fraud suits who cannot distinguish between his personal grudges and foreign policy. Is this going to work?

I don't think Fred ever endorsed Trump, although he was no doubt entertained by seeing the  Clintons publicly humiliated.

I agree with Fred's take on the saber rattling shit, and the Mexico shit. It makes perfect sense that Trump hates Mexico for his own personal reasons, and is now using the bully pulpit to get a a little revenge for perceived injustices.

Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on February 08, 2017, 01:36:53 PM
Fred did think much of either candidate.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 08, 2017, 03:48:25 PM

I don't think Fred ever endorsed Trump

Did he ever write an article attacking Trump prior to the election?

RE
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: K-Dog on February 08, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-58885459/turbine/la-dhorsey-1485329555-snap-photo/1150/1150x647)
Title: Trumpty-Dumpty Loses Again
Post by: RE on February 09, 2017, 07:26:26 PM
On to the Supreme Court.

RE

 Politics
Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

By ADAM LIPTAKFEB. 9, 2017

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/10/us/10courts/10courts-master768.jpg)
From left, Abdulmajeed and his wife, Baraa, Syrian refugees, were greeted by her father at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on Tuesday. They were allowed to enter the country after a federal judge blocked key parts of President Trump’s immigration ban. Credit Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role to act as a check on the president.

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said, for instance, that the administration had pointed to “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations had committed terrorism in the United States.

The ruling also rejected the administration’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security determinations. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, said the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.

“It is beyond question,” the unsigned decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”

The court acknowledged that Mr. Trump was owed deference on his immigration and national security policy determinations, but it said he was asking for something more.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.

    Coretta Scott King’s 1986 Statement to the Senate About Jeff Sessions
    FEB 8
    Trump Turns Kuwait’s ‘Visa Ban’ Into Big News, but It Wasn’t Quite New
    FEB 8
    Trump Says Nordstrom Treated His Daughter ‘So Unfairly’; Fireworks Before Final Vote on Jeff Sessions
    FEB 8
    Love, Interrupted: A Travel Ban Separates Couples
    FEB 8
    Republican Senators Vote to Formally Silence Elizabeth Warren
    FEB 7


“The government has taken the position,” the decision said, “that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.”
Document
Ninth Circuit’s Decision on Trump’s Travel Ban

Read the text of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to reinstate President Trump's travel ban.
OPEN Document

Within minutes of the ruling, Mr. Trump angrily vowed to reporters at the White House and in a Twitter message to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

He told reporters that the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily.” He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

The Supreme Court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-to-4 tie there would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.

The travel ban, one of the first executive orders Mr. Trump issued after taking office, suspended worldwide refugee entry into the United States. It also barred visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations for up to 90 days to give federal security agencies time to impose stricter vetting processes.

Immediately after it was issued, the ban spurred chaos at airports nationwide as hundreds of foreign travelers found themselves stranded at immigration checkpoints, and protests erupted against a policy that critics derided as un-American. The State Department said up to 60,000 foreigners’ visas had been canceled in the days immediately after the ban was imposed.

Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court.

Thursday’s decision reviewed a ruling issued last Friday by Judge James L. Robart, a federal judge in Seattle. Judge Robart blocked the key parts of the order, allowing immigrants and travelers who had been barred entry to come into the United States.
U.S. & Politics By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:08
Washington Attorney General Applauds Decision
Video
Washington Attorney General Applauds Decision

Bob Ferguson, the attorney general of Washington State, said the rebuke of Donald J. Trump’s travel ban by a federal appeals court panel was a "complete victory." By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Photo by Associated Press. Watch in Times Video »

    embed

    ShareTweet

That case, filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, is at an early stage, and the appeals court ruled on the narrow question of whether to stay a lower court’s temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban.

In rejecting the administration’s request for a stay, the court said, “The government submitted no evidence to rebut the states’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.”

The court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. “The government has pointed to no evidence,” the decision said, “that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

The members of the three-judge panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama; Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

They said the states were likely to succeed at the end of the day because Mr. Trump’s order appeared to violate the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees.

The court said the administration’s legal position in the case had been a moving target. It noted that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, had issued “authoritative guidance” several days after the executive order came out, saying it did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said that “we cannot rely” on that statement.

“The White House counsel is not the president,” the decision said, “and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments. Moreover, in light of the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.”
Photo
The activist Michael Petrelis outside of the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday after the ruling was announced. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

In its briefs and in the arguments before the panel on Tuesday, the administration’s position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration supplemented its request for categorical vindication with a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

At most, a Justice Department brief said, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future” should be allowed to enter the country despite the ban.

The court rejected that request, saying that people in the United States without authorization have due process rights, as do citizens with relatives who wish to travel to the United States.
First Draft

Every weekday, get political news and analysis from the staff of The New York Times.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Privacy Policy

The court discussed but did not decide whether the executive order violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion by disfavoring Muslims.

It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.

But the court said it would defer a decision on the question of religious discrimination. “In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim,” the decision said, “we reserve consideration of these claims.”

The court also refused to narrow the geographical scope of the trial court’s nationwide injunction, noting that a Texas court had issued a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s immigration plan.
Graphic
Trump’s Immigration Ban: Who Is Barred and Who Is Not

A wide array of people are affected by President Trump’s order.
OPEN Graphic

“It is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the executive order,” the court said.

“The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions,” the decision said. “For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.”

The court acknowledged “the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages.”

“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies,” the decision said. “And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”

“These competing public interests,” the court said, “do not justify a stay.”

The World Relief Corporation, one of the agencies that resettles refugees in the United States, is scheduled to receive 275 newcomers in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with family. The agency will arrange for housing and jobs for the refugees in cities including Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Sacramento.

“We have families that have been separated for years by terror, war and persecution,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of the organization. “Some family members had already been vetted and cleared and were standing with tickets, and were then told they couldn’t travel. So the hope of reunification was crushed, and now they will be admitted. That’s fabulous news for those families.”

The court ruling did not affect one part of the executive order: the cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the 2017 fiscal year. That is down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under Mr. Obama. The order also directed the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities.

As of Thursday, that means the United States will only be allowed to accept about 16,000 more refugees this fiscal year. Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, 33,929 refugees have been admitted, 5,179 of them Syrians.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty Loses Again
Post by: RE on February 10, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318875-after-appeals-court-ruling-trump-has-2-options-neither-is (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318875-after-appeals-court-ruling-trump-has-2-options-neither-is)

After appeals court ruling, Trump has two unappealing options.
By William Fernholz, opinion contributor - 02/09/17 11:50 PM EST
 
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/gettyimages-629849298_1_0.jpg?itok=KrnHaWx6)
After appeals court ruling, Trump has two unappealing options.
© Getty

The Ninth Circuit, the appeals court for the western United States, refused to lift the temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevents the government from implementing President Trump’s immigration executive order. It was a short trip to the Ninth Circuit, and the lawyers for the government leave it bruised, though not beaten.

Like most court decisions, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion has exciting bits and boring bits, but the boring bits are often the most important. Let’s discuss the exciting part first: Who will likely win?

In considering a TRO, the law requires the court to guess which party will prevail. This is called “likelihood of success.”

 

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to win on the claim that the executive order deprives persons “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Based on prior Supreme Court cases, the Ninth Circuit held that the Due Process Clause applies broadly, not just to citizens: “(A)liens who are in the United States unlawfully . . . have due process rights as well.”

The plaintiffs also claim that the executive order amounts to religious discrimination. The Ninth Circuit “reserve(d) consideration” on this point. Nevertheless, the court observed that the trial court could consider evidence beyond the language in the executive order itself.

This is crucial, because plaintiffs’ case hinges on numerous statements by President Trump and his advisors that they intended to implement a ban on Muslims.

Now to the boring, but crucial parts. The government argued that the courts should not even hear this case, based on the doctrines of standing and political questions. Let’s consider them in turn.

The Constitution limits courts to hearing “cases” or “controversies.” A potential plaintiff can’t just sue because she is angry. Courts can only get involved if the plaintiff has suffered some concrete and individual harm. The courts call this “standing.”

The plaintiffs, the states of Washington and Minnesota, argued that their public universities were harmed because of the executive order’s effect on international faculty and students from the seven designated nations. The Ninth Circuit agreed.

The Ninth Circuit also agreed that the courts had the power to review the executive order. Some matters — for example, strategic decisions in a war — are essentially unreviewable by a court. These matters are “political questions,” meaning that they are left solely to the elected branches of the U.S. government.

The U.S. argued that immigration is one of those matters. This was always an uphill battle for the government, because the courts have, in fact, reviewed important immigration matters before, including in INS v. Chadha, taught in most constitutional law classes.

The Trump administration has two additional reasons to be worried about this decision.

First, it will likely lose the next round of litigation, concerning the preliminary injunction (a court order made in the early stages of a lawsuit which prohibits the parties from doing an act in order to preserve the status quo).

Ordinarily TROs last at most two weeks and are not reviewable by a higher court such as the Ninth Circuit. There is an exception when a TRO operates essentially like a preliminary injunction, which can last as long as the case itself. The only reason why the Ninth Circuit reviewed the TRO was because “the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction.”

Why is this important? The trial court in this case has set a schedule to hear the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. If the trial court grants that preliminary injunction, it may be safe in the appeals court, since the Ninth Circuit has already treated the prior TRO as if it were a preliminary injunction.

Second, the Trump administration may be saddled with these Ninth Circuit judges in the future. On a later appeal, a party can request the same judges as heard the first appeal. The judges can decide whether or not to grant that request, but if you were a judge on this case, wouldn’t you want to stay on it?

What happens next? The government can ask the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision or, before that, have a larger, en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit consider the case.

It is very unlikely that the government will seek en banc review, and even less likely that the Ninth Circuit would grant it. It is impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in recent, controversial matters, the court has proceeded slowly. It was more than six years after the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention camps that the Supreme Court ruled on the habeas corpus rights of persons detained there.

The most likely result of the past few days’ legal maneuvering is that the case returns to the trial court for further, less rushed, proceedings. And when the parties appear again before Judge Robart, the plaintiffs will be further ahead than they were six days ago.

William Fernholz is a lecturer-in-residence at the UC Berkeley School of Law and the director of its appellate and competitions programs.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: luciddreams on February 10, 2017, 05:40:59 AM
I find some pleasure in the fact that Dump isn't getting his way.  He is not used to not getting his way, and it was inevitable that he would be forced to learn this lesson.  Although...who knows what he will do next, and learning a lesson is probably something Dump is impervious to...and it's all just political bread and circus for the masses because ultimately the Corporatocracy does what it wills. 

Personally I think this immigration ban is more about changing the way we talk and think about immigrants.  This is about programming the mind of the masses.  Things change one half degree at a time as the frog gets cooked to death. 

All it would take would be a false flag terrorist event at this point.  That would give Dump all he needs.  He would then point and say "see, see, I told you Merika, I know everything because I'm the best and you didn't listen to me and now those people are dead."  The tide would likely turn and people would then be talking about how the judicial arm of the government is making us unsafe and has the terrorist interest in mind.  In fact I'm sure they already are saying those things. 

The Wall is along the same line as this travel ban.  It's meant to do the same thing.  Rome built walls at the end of their empire to keep the barbarians out and it didn't work.  Seems to be an end stage phenomenon for empires. 
Title: Trump must break judicial power
Post by: RE on February 10, 2017, 07:48:58 AM
I find some pleasure in the fact that Dump isn't getting his way.  He is not used to not getting his way, and it was inevitable that he would be forced to learn this lesson.  Although...who knows what he will do next, and learning a lesson is probably something Dump is impervious to...and it's all just political bread and circus for the masses because ultimately the Corporatocracy does what it wills. 

Personally I think this immigration ban is more about changing the way we talk and think about immigrants.  This is about programming the mind of the masses.  Things change one half degree at a time as the frog gets cooked to death. 

All it would take would be a false flag terrorist event at this point.  That would give Dump all he needs.  He would then point and say "see, see, I told you Merika, I know everything because I'm the best and you didn't listen to me and now those people are dead."  The tide would likely turn and people would then be talking about how the judicial arm of the government is making us unsafe and has the terrorist interest in mind.  In fact I'm sure they already are saying those things. 

The Wall is along the same line as this travel ban.  It's meant to do the same thing.  Rome built walls at the end of their empire to keep the barbarians out and it didn't work.  Seems to be an end stage phenomenon for empires.

Pat Buchanan is already saying El Dumpo must "break" judicial power.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/ (http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/)

LAW OF THE LAND
Trump must break judicial power
Pat Buchanan: 'A clipping of the court's wings is long overdue'
Published: 18 hours ago

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."


“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren – that Sessions is steeped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” – echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.

For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.

And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.

Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who had presided over one of the trials.

Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.
VideoGorsuch 'honored and humbled' to be Trump's SCOTUS pick

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/#M2OkWVFBDBuviIGd.99 (http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/#M2OkWVFBDBuviIGd.99)
Title: The Long Road to Impeach Trump Just Got Shorter
Post by: RE on February 10, 2017, 01:46:10 PM
An Impeachment proceeding could be fun!  :icon_mrgreen:

The only problem is we would get Pence as POTUS afterward. :(

RE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-long-road-to-impeach-trump-just-got-shorter/5574109 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-long-road-to-impeach-trump-just-got-shorter/5574109)

The Long Road to Impeach Trump Just Got Shorter
By Norman Solomon
Global Research, February 10, 2017
Region: USA
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GettyImages-632867454-2-1280x720-400x225.jpg)
The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating.

On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment.

A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent.

Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country.

Under the Trump presidency, defending a wide range of past gains is both necessary and insufficient. Fighting for impeachment is a way to go on the offensive, directly challenging the huge corruption that Trump has brought to the White House.

From the outset, President Trump has been violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution — its foreign and domestic “emoluments” clauses. In a nutshell, both clauses forbid personally profiting from presidential service beyond receiving a government salary.

Some believe that the Republican-controlled Congress is incapable of impeaching Trump, but history tells us what’s possible when a president falls into wide disrepute. On July 27, 1974, seven GOP representatives on the 38-member House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach a fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon.

As for objections that impeaching and removing Trump from office would make Mike Pence the president, that concern is apt to bypass one set of key considerations after another. Along the way, in political terms, people need to think through the implications of the fact that Trump could only be removed from office with the help of many votes from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Even if every Democrat in the House voted in unison to impeach Trump, impeachment would only be possible if at least two-dozen Republican members of the House voted in favor. Likewise, a vote in the Senate (requiring two-thirds) to remove Trump from the presidency would only be successful if at least 19 Republican senators voted for conviction. Such events would badly splinter and damage the Republican Party — causing divisive bitterness, putting GOP leaders back on their heels and hobbling a Pence presidency.

Arguably most important of all, democracy requires that no one be above the law — a principle that’s most crucially applied to the holder of the most powerful office in the U.S. government. Extreme abuse of power from the top of the government must be seen and treated as intolerable.

The Constitution that Trump continues to flagrantly violate is supposed to be “the supreme law of the land.” To give Trump a pass would be to wink at his merger of vast personal wealth and corporate holdings with vast governmental power.

From the grassroots, it’s crucial for constituents to push back with determination. As the Impeach Donald Trump Now campaign’s website documents in detail, Trump’s personal riches are entangled with countless policy options for his administration. That precedent must be resisted and defeated.

So far, the Democratic Party’s leadership in Congress has shown scant interest in impeaching Trump. With escalating pressure from constituents, that may soon change.

Congressman Nadler’s unusual resolution of inquiry will be able to avoid some of the standard roadblocks in the House. As his website explains,

    “A Resolution of Inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.”

Nadler has just put a big toe in the impeachment water. Yet no members of the House have taken the plunge to introduce an actual resolution for impeachment. They will have to be pushed.

Norman Solomon is national coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which is co-sponsoring with Free Speech For People the grassroots impeachment campaign at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: Palloy2 on February 10, 2017, 02:14:07 PM
All Congress members are rich, and accept donations from other rich lobbyists, and all could have the same accusations made about themselves, (including Hillary as Sec of State), so this is just a partisan piece of mischief-making.  Facts are what is needed.
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 10, 2017, 02:34:32 PM
All Congress members are rich, and accept donations from other rich lobbyists, and all could have the same accusations made about themselves, (including Hillary as Sec of State), so this is just a partisan piece of mischief-making.  Facts are what is needed.

Facts?  We don't NEED no stinkin' facts!

http://www.youtube.com/v/VqomZQMZQCQ

RE
Title: Trump considers writing ‘brand new’ immigration order
Post by: RE on February 11, 2017, 12:31:39 AM
What did I tell you?  "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" lol.

His Trumpness will constantly blame the judiciary for blockading him, and then as soon as you get some Muslim psycho going Postal in a nightclub, he will say, "See, I told you so."

Decent likelihood he hires the Muslim to do the job and promises him 7 Virgins to fuck in all of eternity after the FBI blows him away.

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-considers-rewriting-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/10/ddcf5a6a-efb5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.2f4447ae5082 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-considers-rewriting-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/10/ddcf5a6a-efb5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.2f4447ae5082)

National Security
Trump considers writing ‘brand new’ immigration order

White House says it's 'reviewing all options' after federal appeals court ruling

Play Video1:57
A federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling suspending President Trump’s controversial immigration order barring refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. The White House said on Feb. 10 that it is "reviewing all options," including possibly going to the Supreme Court. (Peter Stevenson, Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
By Matt Zapotosky, Philip Rucker and Rachel Weiner February 10 at 7:56 PM

President Trump said Friday that he is considering rewriting his executive order temporarily barring refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the country, indicating that the administration may try to quickly restore some aspects of the now-frozen travel ban or replace it with other measures.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he would probably wait until Monday or Tuesday to take any action, and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said several options — including taking the case to the Supreme Court — were still on the table.

Trump hinted that the ongoing legal wrangling might move too slowly for his taste, though he thought he would ultimately prevail in court.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

“We will win that battle,” he said. “The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand-new order.”

He said among the revisions he might make are “new security measures.”
Federal appeals court rules against immigration ban. Here's what Trump could do next.
Embed Share
Play Video1:52
A federal appeals court ruled 3 to 0 against President Trump's controversial immigration ban that barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously Thursday that Trump’s travel ban should remain suspended, allowing people previously barred to continue entering the United States. While the judges were deciding only whether national security concerns necessitated immediately reinstating the ban — and not whether it could ultimately pass constitutional muster — their ruling put the future of Trump’s order in doubt.

White House and Justice Department officials began mulling several options as new Attorney General Jeff Sessions was briefed on the matter. They could rewrite the order in hopes that modifications would help it pass legal muster. They could ask the Supreme Court or the full 9th Circuit to intervene immediately. Or they could wage a battle in the lower courts, hoping that judges considering more squarely whether the issue ran afoul of the Constitution would land on Trump’s side.

On Friday, the White House injected an element of confusion when an official told reporters that the administration would not seek Supreme Court intervention, only to take it back and be contradicted by Priebus minutes later. Meanwhile, a 9th Circuit judge, without prompting, called for a vote to determine whether the entire court should rehear the case. The court asked for briefs from those involved in the case by Thursday.

[Federal appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban]

No matter what it chooses to do, the White House will face a difficult battle to restore the ban, particularly in the short term. The 9th Circuit judges indicated that some of the administration’s proposed concessions — which presumably could turn into rewrites — don’t go far enough. Government lawyers also cannot undo Trump’s campaign trail comments about wanting to stop all Muslims from entering the country and his assertion after taking office that Christians would be given priority. That is potentially compelling evidence that even a watered-down order might be intended to discriminate, said Leon Fresco, who worked in the office of immigration litigation in President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

“The problem is this is such a bad case for the government to be making these arguments,” Fresco said.

If judges fear that the government will revert to its original position once litigation has stopped, “the court won’t usually dismiss those matters, because they say, ‘Look, it’s likely to come up again,’ ” Fresco said.

The initial ban, introduced two weeks ago, on people from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was set to expire in 90 days, and the ban on refugees in 120 days. The order ostensibly enacted a temporary pause on people entering the country so that the administration could develop more stringent vetting procedures. Trump referenced “extreme vetting” when asked what a modified order might entail.

“We have very, very strong vetting,” he said. “I call it extreme vetting, and we’re going very strong on security.”

[7 key takeaways from the court’s ruling on Trump’s immigration order]

In a separate case in federal court in Virginia, a judge Friday pressed the government to produce any evidence that a ban on travel was necessary on national security grounds. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said the presidential order “has all kinds of defects” and “clearly is overreaching” when it comes to long-term residents of the United States. She said there was “startling evidence” from national security professionals that the order “may be counterproductive to its stated goal” of keeping the nation safe.

The 9th Circuit judges also rejected the Justice Department’s request to narrow a lower-court judge’s freeze of the ban, saying that even if that freeze was too broad, it is “not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order.” They asserted their authority to serve as a check on the president’s power, while noting that their ruling was limited to whether the ban should be temporarily suspended.

The president has forcefully said all week that judges were wrong in their decisions on his order and that immigration law gives him broad authority to restrict foreigners from entering the United States. On Friday he posted on Twitter a quote from a Lawfare article, which noted that the 9th Circuit judges had not cited in their opinion the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives him such powers.

[Federal judge: Courts ‘begging’ for evidence to support Trump’s travel ban]

There seemed to be a growing view from commentators on the right, though, that the Trump administration might be better off to abandon this fight, rewrite portions of the executive order and thus be on more solid ground for future legal battles.

Edward Whelan, an influential voice in the conservative legal world who writes for the National Review Online, indicated on Twitter that he had doubts about the 9th Circuit’s ruling but also concerns about whether the Supreme Court would reinstate an executive order he viewed as flawed.

He tweeted: “2 modest propositions: (1) Courts are getting it wrong on EO; and (2) this is not the right legal battle to fight. Do the EO right this time.” “EO” is a common abbreviation for “executive order.”

In the court hearing before the 9th Circuit, Justice Department lawyers offered a possible concession. The court, they said, could permit travel for those “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future,” but not, perhaps, for those without visas already.

The judges rejected that argument, saying that such relief would not help U.S. citizens who “have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States,” nor would it allay concerns about the due-process rights of people in the country illegally.

Justice Department lawyers also argued that the ban no longer applied to green-card holders — citing guidance from the White House counsel issued after the ban took effect — and that challenges on those grounds should thus be invalidated. On that, too, the judges disagreed.

“The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments,” the judges wrote. “Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.”

The White House could adjust the order in other ways, such as by exempting students or other categories of people. That would be significant because it might affect the ability of states such as Washington and Minnesota to have adequate standing to sue.

But analysts said the administration is likely to still face vigorous challenges.

“Whatever they do, I think they’re running into a problem,” said Reaz H. Jafri, the global head of immigration at the Withersworldwide law firm. “I don’t know what type of a ban they can possibly craft that can be constitutional.”
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 11, 2017, 02:57:13 PM
Here come the multiple "rolling" national strikes!

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8986.0.html (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,8986.0.html)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 11, 2017, 04:36:56 PM
Trump apparently thought everyone was going to love him when he became President.  Everyone loves Presidents, after all, right!?!

So ... sad.  Sad.


not happy trump
not happy trump
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: JRM on February 11, 2017, 04:44:45 PM
“Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room” -- New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=0)


Some artist should slip in images of Bozo the Clown, Daffy Duck and Big Bird here.:  https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/06/us/06conflict-web02/06conflict-web02-master768-v2.jpg (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/06/us/06conflict-web02/06conflict-web02-master768-v2.jpg)
Title: Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
Post by: RE on February 11, 2017, 04:47:14 PM
Trump apparently thought everyone was going to love him when he became President.  Everyone loves Presidents, after all, right!?!

So ... sad.  Sad.

I don't think Trumpty Dumpty gives a shit whether anyone loves him or not.  He enjoys being an asshole and making enemies.  Also, everyone does not love Presidents.  Obama-sama was roundly despised by Righties, and the Bushies roundly despised by Lefties.

"Love" is not generally a big motivator amongst politicians.  What motivates them is Money & Power.

RE
Title: Week three of the Trump presidency: A crisis of bourgeois rule and turn toward d
Post by: RE on February 11, 2017, 05:00:02 PM
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/02/11/week-three-of-the-trump-presidency-a-crisis-of-bourgeois-rule-and-turn-toward-dictatorship/ (http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/02/11/week-three-of-the-trump-presidency-a-crisis-of-bourgeois-rule-and-turn-toward-dictatorship/)

   
Week three of the Trump presidency: A crisis of bourgeois rule and turn toward dictatorship
February 11, 2017 shorty   

(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Trump-chiefs-of-police-600x330.jpg)

OPEDS |  JOSEPH KISHORE | WSWS.ORG
Three extraordinary developments over the past several days have exposed the breakdown of democratic forms of rule in the United States.

On Monday, Trump delivered a political speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida in which he attacked the press and implied that it was aiding the enemy by not reporting terrorist attacks. “They have their reasons and you understand that,” Trump told the military, appealing for its support. Defending his anti-Muslim travel ban, he said, “We need strong programs” to keep out “people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.”

Two days later, on Wednesday, Trump gave a speech before a police organization, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, bitterly attacking the judiciary. The appearance came on the eve of a decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on his travel ban.

“We need security in our country,” Trump told the police. “And we have to give you the weapons that you need. And this [the order on immigration] is a weapon that you need. And they [the courts] are trying to take it away from you, maybe because of politics or maybe because of political views. We can’t let that happen.”

This was nothing less than a call from the US president for the police to oppose or defy an unfavorable court ruling. He underscored the point by adding, “One of the reasons I was elected was because of law and order and security… And they’re taking away our weapons one by one, that’s what they’re doing.”

In between these two speeches, on Tuesday night, Republicans in the US Senate took the extraordinary step of halting a speech by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren against the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general, the nation’s chief law enforcement official.
Democrats, including Warren, have engaged in empty posturing over Trump’s various far-right cabinet appointments, they have done nothing to prevent the nominations from going through. What they have relentlessly pursued, however, is a campaign to demonize Russia and denounce Trump for being too close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has been their main point of attack against the new president…They speak for those factions of the military-intelligence apparatus that backed the Hillary Clinton campaign in large part out of concern that Trump will shift away from an aggressive anti-Russia policy.

Warren was reading from a letter sent by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 opposing the nomination of Sessions for a federal judgeship. Republican Senators interrupted Warren, invoking an obscure rule barring senators from imputing to other senators “any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.” Warren was ordered to stop talking and return to her seat.

The invocation of this gag rule recalls in its own way the pre-Civil War rule established in Congress to prevent members of either house from talking about slavery on the floor of the legislative chambers. The ban on discussion of slavery was imposed because the issue was so explosive.

Each one of these events is an indication of a violent break with the most basic forms of bourgeois democracy. The first targeted the press, which is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution; the second was an attack on the judiciary, one of the three “coequal,” according to the Constitution, branches of government; the third was an attempt to muzzle debate in Congress.

Within this context, the response of the Democratic Party is significant. When Warren was told to sit down, she complied, and no Democrat took any serious action to block the gag order. The debate continued throughout the day Wednesday, culminating in a 52–47 vote to confirm Sessions as the next attorney general.

As for Trump’s speeches before the military and police, they have been downplayed or ignored and their ominous implications covered up.

There are significant political divisions within the ruling class, but these are centered on issues of foreign policy. While Democrats, including Warren, have engaged in empty posturing over Trump’s various far-right cabinet appointments, they have done nothing to prevent the nominations from going through.

What they have relentlessly pursued, however, is a campaign to demonize Russia and denounce Trump for being too close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has been their main point of attack against the new president.

They speak for those factions of the military-intelligence apparatus that backed the Hillary Clinton campaign in large part out of concern that Trump will shift away from an aggressive anti-Russia policy. The new administration is for the present focusing its war-mongering on China and Iran.

While the immediate object of Trump’s vitriol is his critics within the establishment, the more fundamental target is the working class, and the methods being prepared against working-class opposition are far more violent. His speech on Wednesday was a pledge to eliminate all restraints on the use of force by the police. “My message today is that you have a true, true friend in the White House,” he proclaimed. “I support our police. I support our sheriffs. And we support the men and women of law enforcement.”

The Trump administration expresses the dictatorship of the American oligarchy in its most ruthless form. His administration, packed with billionaires and generals, is determined to massively expand the military in preparation for a major war while escalating the social counterrevolution within the United States. This includes the slashing of health care, the destruction of public education and the elimination of all restraints on corporate profits. To implement this policy, the most basic democratic forms must be cast aside.

The Trump administration is not an aberration in an otherwise healthy society. It is the culmination of a longstanding crisis of American democracy. In 2000, when the Supreme Court intervened in the election to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and hand the presidency to George W. Bush, the World Socialist Web Site noted that the decision of the court and the absence of any serious opposition from the Democratic Party demonstrated the absence of any significant constituency for democratic rights within the ruling class.

The past sixteen years have confirmed this analysis. Under Bush, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were used to proclaim a “war on terror” and justify unending war abroad and the most far-reaching attacks on democratic rights within the United States. Far from reversing these processes, Obama extended them, including the assertion of the right of the presi