Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perspective please.

ALL of the POTUS administrations in my lifetime have done this kind of political theatre stuff. Appointing a drug czar means we're "really" working on the drug problem. Giving a freedom award to a person of color means we no longer have any race issues. Passing a law that increases mandatory sentencing means that we are being tough on crime. Increasing the capital gains tax by 5% means we're really sticking it to the rich this time. ALL of this is SHOW and not substance -- like the hard-bodied assistant in a magic act.

The current occupant's administration is performing their little theatre moments just as have all the predecessors.

Do not let your mislike of Trump lead you to analyze his shenanigans as any more or any less superfluous and silly than those who have gone before.



You want to really evaluate him or criticize him? Look at the policy measures being taken and argue how/when/why they fall short or will have unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits.

[Husar]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241

In two separate measures, the president ordered:
- A ban on administration officials from ever lobbying the US on behalf of a foreign government, and a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

- A preliminary plan by the secretary of defence to defeat so-called Islamic State (IS) to be presented within 30 days

Didn't he claim during the campaign that he had a great plan already but couldn't mention it because it had to be kept secret?
Now he tasks his secretary of defense with making a plan? What happened to his great plan that would work 100%?

[Gilrandir]

Can I just say lol America. What mess have you got yourselves in?

You both are in the mess. One is called Trump, the other - Brexit.

Didn't he claim during the campaign that he had a great plan already but couldn't mention it because it had to be kept secret?
Now he tasks his secretary of defense with making a plan? What happened to his great plan that would work 100%?

What if his secretary of defense comes up with a 110% plan?

[Beskar]

Perspective please.

I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.

Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating.

[Greyblades]

Just business as usual I guess.
The money needs to flow...

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others

President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, not thinking ahead to the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.

"Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump joked, referring to an array of White House officials who lined up behind him as he sat at his Oval Office desk. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway. "So you have one last chance to get out."

Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.

I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.

Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating.

I find your lack of faith disturbing...


An inability to take the high road to instead follow the blind denergation of your opposition's example is nothing to take pride in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others



Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.

I find your lack of faith disturbing...


An inability to take the high road to instead follow the blind denergation of your opposition's example is nothing to take pride in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/u...ns-others.html

But Mr. Eisen and other ethics experts noted that rules banning lobbyists from taking any job with an agency they had tried to influence in the past two years had been removed. Also, the new rules allow departing executive branch employees to take private sector jobs and then informally lobby the administration, as long as they are not registered as a lobbyist, a type of activity previously prohibited for two years. Registration is required once a person does a certain amount of work for a client.“There is much to like,” Mr. Eisen said of the new executive order. “But it gives nonlobbyists too much leeway when they leave. That is where the biggest problem in the system is: unregistered, shadow lobbyists. They should be getting more regulation, not less.”
He also said, “Trump kept the Obama limits on the revolving door coming into government, but eliminated Obama’s revolving door protections for nonlobbyists leaving government.”

Not so much draining the swamp, as putting a curtain around it.

[Idaho]

You both are in the mess. One is called Trump, the other - Brexit

Both are lol right wingers. Full of bile and brainlessness.

[Husar]

Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.

The business as usual comment was made regarding a different issue...

Eh, that lobbying ban thing was already mentioned in my quote, I didn't comment on it because it seemed a bit unclear whether it meant all lobbying or just some of it. "other lobbying" does not necessarily mean "ALL other lobbying". When I read this for example:

Under an executive order that Trump signed in the presence of the news media, every political appointee joining the executive branch on or after Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — must agree to the lobbying bans. That includes avoiding, for five years after leaving, lobbying the agency they worked for.

Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.

That sounds like he didn't end all lobbying and just placed some restrictions on people hired in the future. Not to forget that he had the ban on Mattis serving in the government waived as well apparently. I guess we will see whether it actually changes something or whether companies and special interests just hire people for five years to use them as lobbyists afterwards, or simply use people who didn't work in the government before as lobbyists etc.

Trump said the order supersedes one that President Barack Obama signed on Jan. 21, 2009, that banned anyone from lobbying the government for a period of two years after leaving. Trump said Obama's order was "full of loopholes."

We'll see whether this one isn't. This is the same guy who seems to lie on a daily basis and whose staff presents us with "alternative facts" after all.

Others say the prohibitions on lobbying are too insignificant to be effective.

Guess I'm not the only one with doubts.

[CrossLOPER]

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nd-are-porous/

The five-year ban is also likely to prompt some people to de-register as lobbyists before being considered for Trump administration jobs or to not register as a lobbyists after they’ve left the White House, even if they are involved in similar activities intended to influence public officials.

One sign indicates this may already be happening. A close aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Josh Pitcock — a Washington lobbyist for the state of Indiana — filed paperwork with the Senate on Monday to terminate his status as a federal lobbyist.

Pitcock advised Pence, Indiana’s governor, during the presidential campaign and has lobbied for the state since 2013, earning $280,000 a year to lobby on issues including health-care marketplace exchange rates and resources for the state’s response to the Zika virus, lobbying records show.

But hey, if it has a YUGE font it must mean something.

[Greyblades]

The business as usual comment was made regarding a different issue...

Forgive me a degree of artistic license, it was too good a segway and I knew you would be able tell my intent.

Guess I'm not the only one with doubts.

Doubts of effectiveness at this juncture, I can understand, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, one that I believe he is likely to improve on. I base that belief on his previous willingness to defer to his cabinate's expertise on issues they disagree on.

[Viking]

It would seem to me that all seven targeted countries themselves bar people from entry based purely on nationality. If so, I hope that any citizens of these countries now expressing their indignation at the US ban have already expressed their indignation at the bans in place in their own countries. If not, now would seem to be an excellent opportunity.

[Husar]

Doubts of effectiveness at this juncture, I can understand, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, one that I believe he is likely to improve on. I base that belief on his previous willingness to defer to his cabinate's expertise on issues they disagree on.

Yeah, well, this whole cabinet thing will be quite interesting in the coming weeks. It's not like there are no potential business interests in a cabinet of millionaires or billionaires. Even if they have no active business ties, they surely all have a lot of friends who are CEOs and so on...
There's no need for a lobbyist when you have a good friend sitting directly in the office after all.

I'd actually be happy if he did drain the swamp so to say, I just don't buy it coming from him. I didn't check the data behind it, but this little graphic is very interesting regarding the potential effectiveness of his immigration ban regarding terrorism and how business interests are probably not of any concern for him:



Not to forget that his children running his business is laughable in terms of his being detached from the business...

[Montmorency]

Perspective please.

ALL of the POTUS administrations in my lifetime have done this kind of political theatre stuff. Appointing a drug czar means we're "really" working on the drug problem. Giving a freedom award to a person of color means we no longer have any race issues. Passing a law that increases mandatory sentencing means that we are being tough on crime. Increasing the capital gains tax by 5% means we're really sticking it to the rich this time. ALL of this is SHOW and not substance -- like the hard-bodied assistant in a magic act.

The current occupant's administration is performing their little theatre moments just as have all the predecessors.

Do not let your mislike of Trump lead you to analyze his shenanigans as any more or any less superfluous and silly than those who have gone before.



You want to really evaluate him or criticize him? Look at the policy measures being taken and argue how/when/why they fall short or will have unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits.

You should know that this is alarmingly naive. If the analyte was undertaken for political purposes, then it clearly has political ramifications. The question is not one of policy itself but of how policy is used to transform power in politics.

You can't make much of a distinction between "theater" and "substance".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...y-not-against/

Boris Johnson gets an exemption for British Citizens.

At least someone achieved something this week.

[Husar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...y-not-against/

Boris Johnson gets an exemption for British Citizens.

At least someone achieved something this week.

[...]Boris Johnson lobbies president

I thought Trump just stopped all lobbying, especially from foreign countries.

[Dâriûsh]

It would seem to me that all seven targeted countries themselves bar people from entry based purely on nationality. If so, I hope that any citizens of these countries now expressing their indignation at the US ban have already expressed their indignation at the bans in place in their own countries. If not, now would seem to be an excellent opportunity.

All seven, uh, except Somalia. But who’s counting?

But excellent recommendation. As you know, protesting government decisions in dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan is completely safe.

That leaves war-torn Iraq, with its US supported government, and post-civil war Libya. Do you expect that people, who desperately wants to leave those places, should take time to protest their questionable governments travel restrictions on Israelis before they go?

[Viking]

But excellent recommendation. As you know, protesting government decisions in dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan is completely safe.

That leaves war-torn Iraq, with its US supported government, and post-civil war Libya. Do you expect that people, who desperately wants to leave those places, should take time to protest their questionable governments travel restrictions on Israelis before they go?

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

[Montmorency]

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.

[Dâriûsh]

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

Granted, not all are desperate to leave. That was an exaggeration.

But anyway. So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?

Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?

[Gilrandir]

Both are lol right wingers. Full of bile and brainlessness.

At least one of them the British may try to avoid seeing on their premises:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ancelled-gets/

[Viking]

Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.

So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?

No, just the policies of your own country; since that is the state that benefits from you and that you benefit from, etc.

Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

[Montmorency]

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.

I see your point as not one of whether criticism against one exclusionary policy is negated by the fact that targeted parties employ categorically-similar policies, but of whether the targeted parties themselves have grounds to do so in that light.

I think they can along the same grounds as third parties can criticize the policy, insofar as they (affected Muslim states) can demonstrate a distinction between the logic of their policies and the logic of the US policy (and so a distinction in criticism of one as opposed to another). I think symmetry is more an outcome than a factor.


As an aside, the footnotes in the Wiki reference some kind of pretty cool passport/visa info site. I can't figure out how to navigate it other than to change elements of the url directly to get different results. Here is an example link. 'NA=<>' is where you put the country codeletters for nationality, 'DE=<>' for destination. I think the default passport setting is "normal passport".

From what I can manage, of the countries refusing Israeli passports

- Admission and transit refused to holders of Iraqi "S" series
passports.

These are apparently non-machine readable passports predating a recent Iraqi passport reform.

[Dâriûsh]

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

[Pannonian]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

[Montmorency]

If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal?

EU crush puny Britain!

[Pannonian]

EU crush puny Britain!

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

[Montmorency]

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

I mean in reference to unilateral action (re)implementing restrictive measures on the citizens of other countries.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You should know that this is alarmingly naive. If the analyte was undertaken for political purposes, then it clearly has political ramifications. The question is not one of policy itself but of how policy is used to transform power in politics.

You can't make much of a distinction between "theater" and "substance".

I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.

I was asserting that the more lasting impacts would be engendered by the specific policy acts undertaken -- and that this was the area receiving too little attention because the more "engaging" theatrics draws the attention.


Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.

[Viking]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.

[Montmorency]

Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...