Jump to content
IGNORED

Donald Trump and his Coterie of the Craven (part 16)


Destiny

Recommended Posts

"How Trump is unintentionally making the case for big government"

Quote

One way or another, Donald Trump will end up being a transformative president. But Republicans who voted for him probably didn’t predict that he’d encourage a renewed desire for big government among Americans.

Yet according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, that may be just what’s happening:

In November, voters gave control of the White House and Capitol Hill to the party traditionally associated with reducing the size of government. But now, a record number of Americans say that the government should do more — not less — in order to solve the nation’s problems.

...

Looked at in the right way, this makes perfect sense. To begin, we should understand that Americans have contradictory beliefs about the proper role of government. This is a finding in political science that goes back half a century; in their 1967 book “The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion,” Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril argued that the public is “ideologically conservative” but “operationally liberal.” They like the idea of small government in the abstract, but they also like almost all the particular things that government does. If you ask them whether they want to spend less or more on a list of programs, they’ll say we should spend more on just about everything (the exceptions are usually welfare and foreign aid, in part because people wildly overestimate how much we actually spend on them).

Both parties understand this, and it’s reflected in their rhetoric and the political challenges they face. Republicans tend to talk about broad principles, while Democrats tend to talk about specific programs. Republicans struggle to justify their actual plans (if they have them) for things such as Medicare or environmental protection, while Democrats struggle to craft appealing overarching messages.

If you’re a Republican president, the most advantageous place to be is one in which you preach the small-government gospel and praise Americans for their can-do spirit and rugged individualism, while not actually threatening the government programs they rely on. Yet Trump is doing just the opposite.

During the 2016 campaign, he made a lot of conservatives uneasy by saying that he wasn’t going to touch the programs Americans love, such as Social Security and Medicare. But he also made far more ambitious promises about government — not just that he’d do specific things such as build up infrastructure, but that if we gave him the presidency he’d solve every problem anyone faces. Despite some occasional criticism of regulation, Trump didn’t use the traditional Republican rhetoric about “empowering” people by getting government out of their way. He didn’t characterize Americans as a force waiting to be unleashed; in his telling, the only active force was Trump himself, and once he had government power at his disposal he’d bring us so much winning we’d get tired of winning.

So what you had in 2016 was two candidates advocating for a strong government actively working to improve Americans’ lives. But now, Trump is in many ways governing like an ordinary Republican: gutting the EPA, hoping to remove regulations on Wall Street, and targeting the social safety net. The controversies around these moves have the effect of drawing public attention toward the popular things government does.

The effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act is a perfect example. For years, “Obamacare” was unpopular in the abstract, despite the fact that almost all the law’s provisions garnered extraordinary support. Millions of people would say they opposed this thing called “Obamacare” that they only vaguely understood, yet also say that they loved the fact that you can’t be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, Medicaid was expanded, young people can stay on their parents’ insurance plans, and so on. As long as Republicans were just criticizing the law in the abstract, they were fine. But once they tried to repeal it, news coverage focused on the particular things they were trying to take away, and the result was that the popularity of the law soared, and their replacement plan crashed.

This is likely to be a problem Trump faces repeatedly. He’ll be pursuing a typical Republican agenda, but he won’t have the ideological ballast to make the case for it — and he’ll have to be the primary salesman for every policy change Republicans attempt. We saw it in health care, where occasionally he’d blurt out things such as “We’re going to have insurance for everybody” when they most certainly wouldn’t, a mistake that an ideologue like Paul Ryan would never make. That only had the effect of establishing a promise he would quickly break, discrediting the whole effort. He can pretend that letting energy companies dump coal ash in streams will bring back all the mining jobs, but that’s a scam that can work for only so long before people realize that the jobs haven’t come back.

So Trump has encouraged voters to believe that government’s job is to solve their problems, but when it doesn’t, he won’t have arguments about liberty and the free market to fall back on. If you change people’s expectations, you’d better be able to deliver on them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 476
  • Created
  • Last Reply
57 minutes ago, CTRLZero said:

Yes, Trump's one-size-fits-all response to illegal immigrants is already having an adverse impact on agriculture.  Whenever someone goes on a rant about illegal immigrants, I query them about who will pick our crops?  It's a huge problem, and we as a nation have generally dealt with undocumented farmworkers in the past by turning a blind eye and appreciating our reasonable food prices.  With fewer immigrants even desiring to work here because of potential repercussions, we'd better set aside more of our paychecks to pay for higher food prices.

Maybe the Duggars will lend a hand or 19--no?  :(

I have a very hard time having any sympathy for these idiots who voted for Lord Dampnuts.  It's like that lady who whined when she voted for said Dampnuts and then her undocumented hubby got deported.  I mean, she and many of these farmers  made their fornicating bed by voting for him so they can goddamn well lie in it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What holds the U.S. together in the Trump era"

Quote

Democrats and #NeverTrump Republicans, unhappily, were prescient about a Trump presidency. President Trump has proven himself intellectually, temperamentally and morally unfit to govern. He refuses to learn what he does not know, so he makes constant gaffes and reveals his ignorance. He rages at the press, to no avail. (The media does its job and Trump’s approval sets records for awfulness.) Predictably he’s accomplished very little — actually nothing, save the Supreme Court confirmation that requires legislative action. He’s surrounded himself with cronies, family members and ignoramuses who cannot manage to draft a defensible travel ban (thank goodness) or unite the GOP on health care or tax reform. He arguably violates the emoluments clause every day, and both he and his children have managed to make conflicts of interest and self-enrichment the rule, not the exception, for high officials.

Trump’s ineptitude and feckless advisers provide a partial explanation for why more damage has not been wrought. He’s had to settle for phony executive orders that only “study” bad ideas (e.g., protectionism, building the wall) rather than pursue them. His tone and demeanor are much worse than what he has managed to pull off. Aside from a White House arguably the most feeble and chaotic in a century or so, why have his “wins” been kept to a minimum?

The answer: Democracy is holding up well under its stress test. Trump’s election has provoked a sense of urgency and, yes, fear, among many Americans. (According to polls, Trump remains uniquely unpopular for a president at this stage in his presidency.) Rather than hide under their beds, however, Americans have reacted by protesting (on Jan. 21; at airports; for science on April 22), turning out by the thousands at town halls, organizing themselves, giving money to causes they care about, signing up to run for office and contacting lawmakers before key votes. They turned out in force in the GA-6 special election, overwhelmingly voting for Democrat Jon Ossoff or for Republicans who did not embrace Trump. And they’ve subscribed to mainstream newspapers in record numbers.

...

Speaking of the press, despite bullying, hiding from and insulting the media, Trump hasn’t affected respected news outlets one iota. They continue to fact-check him, investigate his conflicts and reveal his team’s ties to Russia. It’s no wonder he is so furious with the media — he cannot control them or block (even by distracting tweets) facts from getting to the public.

The courts have also done their part. Over and over again, federal courts struck down his Muslim ban. He tried, but failed miserably, to bully judges. He’ll win some and lose some in court for the remainder of his presidency but on his first big, unconstitutional project he was stopped in his tracks.

Trump has also been guided away from many of his destructive and dangerous foreign-policy notions by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James B. Mattis and Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. Even Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has resisted Trump’s pro-Russia bent. Give credit to Trump for choosing them, but the country should be grateful they’ve essentially set foreign policy (e.g., shoring up NATO and Asian alliances) rather than implement whatever crackpot ideas he was peddling.

In sum, Trump may be anti-democratic and inclined to authoritarianism, but Americans are not — and don’t appear ready to give in.

There’s one glaring exception to the refusal of Americans and democratic institutions to fall in line behind Trump: Republicans in Congress. With a paltry number of exceptions, Republican lawmakers have excused or ignored Trump’s conflicts of interest. They show zero interest in enforcing the Constitution’s emoluments clause. They refuse to take action to force the release of his tax returns. In the case of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) they’ve entirely abandoned their constitutional obligations.

Nearly all Republicans opposed a select committee to investigate his Russia scandal. The Senate has rubber-stamped every nominee (a couple have had to drop out), even ones who had ethical weaknesses, lacked experience and displayed unnerving ignorance about the subject matter they were to be responsible for.

Most Republicans have refused to rebuke Trump’s wild claims (e.g., President Obama wiretapped him), egregious statements (siding with National Front proto-fascist Marine Le Pen) and out-and-out lies (e.g., crime is rising due to illegal immigrants). They have put party and partisanship above country and principle, just as they did in the election.

Republicans failed to pass health-care reform not because they determined Trump was backing an extreme, counterproductive and cruel bill, but because it did not go far enough. (The exception here was an undetermined number of moderates who objected to pulling the rug out from the neediest Americans.) Despite pre-election talk about restricting the executive, they’ve raised not a peep about executive orders, including ones that seem to trample on local control (e.g., his so-called sanctuary city order).

As bad as Trump has been — in our book he’s been just as bad as we anticipated — democracy is faring better than we feared. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress, again with some noticeable exceptions, have demonstrated they have neither the ability nor the will to check the president. They’d better step up to the plate soon or voters will conclude the only way to prevent further damage to the Republic is to vote for Democrats in 2018.

The author of this article, Jennifer Rubin, is fairly conservative, but she has been a persistent critic of the tangerine toddler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh geezus, now the State Dept is promoting Orange Ferret Face's place;

latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-state-dept-is-promoting-trump-s-1493063463-htmlstory.html

Quote

President Trump's oceanside Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida has gained considerable airtime and tweet time since Trump took office and dubbed it his winter White House.

It now has official attention from the State Department.

The State Department's "Share America" website, which shares "compelling stories and images that spark discussion and debate," published a blog post about the compound ahead of Trump's April 6 meeting there with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

It doesn't note the discussion and debate over whether the U.S. government should promote Trump's privately owned club, which charges $200,000 to join. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently a 1950's TV show predicted the rise of fuck head and his wall...

http://www.snopes.com/trackdown-trump-character-wall/

Quote

In November 2016, a clip from an episode of the 1950s western television series Trackdown was published to YouTube, along with the claim that it “predicted Donald Trump” by featuring a snake oil salesman character named “Trump” who claimed that only he could prevent the end of the world … by building a wall around the town:

The television series Trackdown really did produce an episode featuring a “Trump” character who came to town claiming that only he could prevent the end of the world by building a wall (and also sold special force propelling umbrellas to deflect meteorites). The episode (S1, E30) aired on CBS in 1958 and was titled “The End of the World,” featuring actor Lawrence Dobkin playing the role of “Walter Trump.” A synopsis of the episode from the Classic TV Archive reads as follows:

Walter Trump, a confidence man, puts on a long robe and holds a tent meeting in the town of Talpa. He tells the townspeople that a cosmic explosion will rain fire on the town and that he is the only one that can save them from death. Ranger Hoby Gilman attempts to prove Trump is a fraud.

While Dobkin appeared in at least three other episodes of Trackdown, this was the only occasion in which he portrayed the Walter Trump character

The episode is up on YouTube now;

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Trump seeks 15 percent corporate tax rate, even if it swells the national debt"

Quote

President Trump has instructed advisers to drastically cut the corporate tax rate even though doing so will expand the deficit and grow the national debt, sticking to one of his campaign pledges but shattering another.

Trump instructed advisers last week that he wants the corporate tax rate to be lowered from 35 percent to 15 percent, a senior White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. This is the same rate that Trump pursued during his 2016 campaign, but officials had not signaled since the election whether he would stick to the pledge.

By doing so — but not committing to measures that would offset the revenue loss — Trump is making clear he is putting a priority on cutting taxes over the national debt. It also potentially creates a tension point with House Republicans, who have spent years advancing a vision for tax restructuring of their own.

The White House decision comes at a crucial time. White House officials plan to unveil the broad principles of their tax plan Wednesday, though details of what would be in the release remained fluid Monday, another White House official said.

When Trump proposed the 15 percent rate during the campaign, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center projected that this would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over 10 years. But White House officials have said that the tax cuts will create such a jump in economic growth that it will create new revenue, an assumption that has divided experts.

“The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday.

...

Businesses are projected to pay $340 billion in corporate taxes in 2018, roughly 10 percent of all revenue collected by the government.

If the amount of taxes paid by businesses falls, it could put more pressure on other taxpayers to make up the difference. But Trump has said he wants to put in place a “massive” cut for the middle class, which means all tax revenue could fall. This would expand the budget deficit unless there is a giant contraction in federal spending, which so far has not been proposed.

At 35 percent, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but most companies pay a much lower effective rate because the tax code is riddled with deductions. Still, lawmakers from both parties have said the corporate tax rate must be reduced to make the United States more competitive.

House Republicans have pursued lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, with the belief that anything lower than that is very difficult to do.

Trump also said that he would reduce the deficit, but top advisers have signaled that his tax plan will grow the deficit because tax rates will be cut so substantially for individuals and businesses.

White House officials have said there are several basic principles to their tax plan. They want to simplify the tax code, cut the corporate tax rate, pass a giant middle-class tax cut, and create a way to punish companies that move overseas and ship goods back into the country. They also want to incentivize U.S. companies to move money back into the United States.

Trump’s push for unveiling his tax plan began last week during several meetings in the Oval Office where he expressed his frustration with the slow pace of legislation on several fronts, including taxes, according to two officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Trump urged his top economic advisers, including Mnuchin, to ready a rollout for this week and to keep the details of the plan controlled as much as possible by Trump advisers and Cabinet members rather than by GOP lawmakers, the officials said.

Trump’s motivation, the officials added, was to showcase progress on tax restructuring ahead of the 100-day mark of his presidency and to quiet critics, especially in the business and financial community, about whether there would be movement on taxes this year.

Talking to aides, Trump underscored the need for the tax plan to include sweeping cuts for both corporations and individuals and did not focus on or express extensive concern about revenue issues or the deficit. As one of the officials described Trump’s outlook, “he wants high growth and high employment.”

Several House Republicans close to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said that they were privately taken aback over the weekend about the White House’s efforts and said Trump risked alienating the speaker and his allies on Capitol Hill if they got behind a proposal that had weak or fragile support in the chamber. They noted that Ryan has already outlined the House’s tax plan over the past year and secured buy-in from members on the general outline of rates and the inclusion of a border-adjustment tax.

The plan Ryan supports is much different from the one Trump is pursuing. It has the 20 percent corporate tax rate, as well as a border adjustment tax that would raise costs for importers but incentivize U.S. exporters.

To the last bolded paragraph: he wants "high growth and high employment". Gee, as if no other president had ever thought of that. My standard answer when someone wants something stupid is "yeah, well, I want several million dollars and George Clooney, but I'm not getting either..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, what a surprise (NOT): "Trump blasts recent approval rating polls as 'fake news'"

Quote

Even though they contained “some very positive info,” President Donald Trump on Monday decried a set of polls released over the weekend as “fake news” conducted by media outlets whose polling about last year’s presidential election had proven incorrect.

“The two fake news polls released yesterday, ABC & NBC, while containing some very positive info, were totally wrong in General E. Watch!” Trump wrote on Twitter Monday morning.

Topline numbers in both polls showed Trump with poor approval numbers: 54 percent of those polled by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal said they disapproved of his performance as president so far, while 53 percent said the same in the survey by ABC News and The Washington Post. Just 40 percent and 42 percent of respondents said they approve of his job performance thus far, respectively.

Other figures from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, including the share of respondents who feel Trump is honest and trustworthy, those who feel he is effective and getting things done, and those who feel he is changing the culture of Washington are all trending downward relative to a survey released in February.

But as Trump noted, the polls were not without good news for the president. The ABC/Washington Post poll showed that Trump would win a rematch of the 2016 election, with 96 percent of respondents who voted for him in November saying they would do so again compared with 85 percent who said the same of Clinton. The ABC/Washington Post poll also indicated that if the 2016 race were run again, Trump could possibly win the popular vote, which he lost to Clinton last November.

In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, more than 60 percent said they supported the president’s decision to order missile strikes against Syria in retaliation for its government's use of chemical weapons against a rebel-controlled region of its own nation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my turn to get super snarly again. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-schumer-says-budget-talks-must-two-way-121730402--politics.html

Quote

 

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Wednesday instructing the Interior Department to review national monument designations made over the past two decades, an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states where officials have objected to federal safeguards.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to declare federal lands of historic or scientific value to be "national monuments" and restrict how the lands can be used.

President Barack Obama infuriated Utah Republicans when he created the Bears Ears National Monument in December on more than 1 million acres of land that's sacred to Native Americans and home to tens of thousands of archaeological sites.

Republicans have asked Trump to reverse the designation, saying it will close the area to new energy development.

I've already outed myself as a hiker, but also enjoy visiting National Monuments. I know they aren't profitable enough to matter to Trump, but not everyone wishes to visit a Trump resort or Disneyland (not knocking Disneyland, just would rather visit Fort McHenry, the Lava Beds, or Dinosaur National Monument). Some of us even plan our vacations around National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests. We spend money in the towns close to these sites, towns that we wouldn't ordinarily decide to visit. 

Let me translate President Donkey's executive order he is planning to sign. "I'm going to review these National Monuments to figure out how my buddies will be able to generate more profit than tourism from them. Why would anyone rather look at a Giant Sequoia when we can cut all of them down to make some money. They'll grow back in a thousand years or so, if I can't find a way to completely screw up the environment and cover all of the west with desert."

May we please resurrect Teddy Roosevelt?

Here is a list of National Monuments designated after 1996, according to Wikipedia. I put it under the spoiler, as it is a lengthly list.

Spoiler

Agate Fossil Bed Nebraska, 1997 (Clinton)

Aqua Fria Arizona, 2000 (Clinton)

California Coastal, 2000 (Clinton)

Grand Canyon-Parashant, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Giant Sequoia, California 2000 (Clinton)

Hanford Reach, Washington 2000 (Clinton)

Canyon of the Ancients Colorado, 2000 (Clinton)

Cascade-Siskiyou, Oregon and California, 2000 (Clinton)

Ironwood Forest, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

President Lincoln and Soldier's Home, Washington D.C.2000 (Clinton)

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, California 2000 (Clinton)

Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Carrizo Plain California 2001 (Clinton)

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks New Mexico 2001 (Clinton)

Pompeys Pillar Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 (Clinton)

Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Virgin Islands Coral Reef U.S. Virgin Islands 2001 (Clinton)

Governors Island New York 2001 (Clinton)

African Burial Ground New York 2006 (Bush)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine Hawaii, 2006 (Bush)

World War II Valor in the Pacific Hawaii, Alaska, California, 2008 (Bush)

Marianas Trench Marine Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 2009 (Bush)

Pacific Remote Islands Marine South Southwest of Hawaii 2009 (Bush)

Rose Atoll Marine American Samoa 2009 (Bush)

Prehistoric Trackways New Mexico 2009 (Obama)

Fort Monroe Virginia 2011 (Obama)

Fort Ord California 2012 (Obama)

Chimney Rock Colorado 2012 (Obama)

César E. Chávez California 2012 (Obama)

Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers Ohio 2013 (Obama)

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Maryland 2013 (Obama)

Río Grande del Norte New Mexico 2013 (Obama)

San Juan Islands Washington 2013 (Obama)

Military Working Dog Teams Texas 2013 (Obama)

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 (Obama)

San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 (Obama)

Tule Springs Fossil Beds Nevada 2014 (Obama)

Browns Canyon Colorado 2015 (Obama)

Honouliuli Hawaii 2015 (Obama)

Pullman Illinois 2015 (Obama)

Basin and Range Nevada 2015 (Obama)

Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 (Obama)

Waco Mammoth Texas 2015 (Obama)

Castle Mountains California 2016 (Obama)

Mojave Trails California 2016 (Obama)

Sand to Snow California 2016 (Obama)

Belmont-Paul Women's Equality District of Columbia 2016 (Obama)

Stonewall New York 2016 (Obama)

Katahdin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 (Obama)

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Atlantic Ocean 2016 (Obama)

Bears Ears Utah 2016 (Obama) the one everyone fought over

Gold Butte Nevada 2016 (Obama)

Birmingham Civil Rights Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Freedom Riders Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Reconstruction Era South Carolina 2017 (Obama)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Childless said:

God, I miss the eloquence of Obama.  Hell, I miss everything about Obama. 

If I had any musical talent I'd write a sad ode to him (and make it big and quit my job)

@fraurosena You mean being president is hard and is a big job with lots of responsibility? Who knew!!!

I'm afraid with Trump declaring massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the exorbitant amount of money his weekly vacations cost that he plans to declare the country bankrupt. Because that's what he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

It's my turn to get super snarly again. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-schumer-says-budget-talks-must-two-way-121730402--politics.html

I've already outed myself as a hiker, but also enjoy visiting National Monuments. I know they aren't profitable enough to matter to Trump, but not everyone wishes to visit a Trump resort or Disneyland (not knocking Disneyland, just would rather visit Fort McHenry, the Lava Beds, or Dinosaur National Monument). Some of us even plan our vacations around National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests. We spend money in the towns close to these sites, towns that we wouldn't ordinarily decide to visit. 

Let me translate President Donkey's executive order he is planning to sign. "I'm going to review these National Monuments to figure out how my buddies will be able to generate more profit than tourism from them. Why would anyone rather look at a Giant Sequoia when we can cut all of them down to make some money. They'll grow back in a thousand years or so, if I can't find a way to completely screw up the environment and cover all of the west with desert."

May we please resurrect Teddy Roosevelt?

Here is a list of National Monuments designated after 1996, according to Wikipedia. I put it under the spoiler, as it is a lengthly list.

  Reveal hidden contents

Agate Fossil Bed Nebraska, 1997 (Clinton)

Aqua Fria Arizona, 2000 (Clinton)

California Coastal, 2000 (Clinton)

Grand Canyon-Parashant, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Giant Sequoia, California 2000 (Clinton)

Hanford Reach, Washington 2000 (Clinton)

Canyon of the Ancients Colorado, 2000 (Clinton)

Cascade-Siskiyou, Oregon and California, 2000 (Clinton)

Ironwood Forest, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

President Lincoln and Soldier's Home, Washington D.C.2000 (Clinton)

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, California 2000 (Clinton)

Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Carrizo Plain California 2001 (Clinton)

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks New Mexico 2001 (Clinton)

Pompeys Pillar Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 (Clinton)

Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Virgin Islands Coral Reef U.S. Virgin Islands 2001 (Clinton)

Governors Island New York 2001 (Clinton)

African Burial Ground New York 2006 (Bush)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine Hawaii, 2006 (Bush)

World War II Valor in the Pacific Hawaii, Alaska, California, 2008 (Bush)

Marianas Trench Marine Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 2009 (Bush)

Pacific Remote Islands Marine South Southwest of Hawaii 2009 (Bush)

Rose Atoll Marine American Samoa 2009 (Bush)

Prehistoric Trackways New Mexico 2009 (Obama)

Fort Monroe Virginia 2011 (Obama)

Fort Ord California 2012 (Obama)

Chimney Rock Colorado 2012 (Obama)

César E. Chávez California 2012 (Obama)

Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers Ohio 2013 (Obama)

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Maryland 2013 (Obama)

Río Grande del Norte New Mexico 2013 (Obama)

San Juan Islands Washington 2013 (Obama)

Military Working Dog Teams Texas 2013 (Obama)

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 (Obama)

San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 (Obama)

Tule Springs Fossil Beds Nevada 2014 (Obama)

Browns Canyon Colorado 2015 (Obama)

Honouliuli Hawaii 2015 (Obama)

Pullman Illinois 2015 (Obama)

Basin and Range Nevada 2015 (Obama)

Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 (Obama)

Waco Mammoth Texas 2015 (Obama)

Castle Mountains California 2016 (Obama)

Mojave Trails California 2016 (Obama)

Sand to Snow California 2016 (Obama)

Belmont-Paul Women's Equality District of Columbia 2016 (Obama)

Stonewall New York 2016 (Obama)

Katahdin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 (Obama)

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Atlantic Ocean 2016 (Obama)

Bears Ears Utah 2016 (Obama) the one everyone fought over

Gold Butte Nevada 2016 (Obama)

Birmingham Civil Rights Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Freedom Riders Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Reconstruction Era South Carolina 2017 (Obama)

 

 

 

Maybe he wants stamp them with the "Trump" brand.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

It's my turn to get super snarly again. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-schumer-says-budget-talks-must-two-way-121730402--politics.html

I've already outed myself as a hiker, but also enjoy visiting National Monuments. I know they aren't profitable enough to matter to Trump, but not everyone wishes to visit a Trump resort or Disneyland (not knocking Disneyland, just would rather visit Fort McHenry, the Lava Beds, or Dinosaur National Monument). Some of us even plan our vacations around National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests. We spend money in the towns close to these sites, towns that we wouldn't ordinarily decide to visit. 

Let me translate President Donkey's executive order he is planning to sign. "I'm going to review these National Monuments to figure out how my buddies will be able to generate more profit than tourism from them. Why would anyone rather look at a Giant Sequoia when we can cut all of them down to make some money. They'll grow back in a thousand years or so, if I can't find a way to completely screw up the environment and cover all of the west with desert."

May we please resurrect Teddy Roosevelt?

Here is a list of National Monuments designated after 1996, according to Wikipedia. I put it under the spoiler, as it is a lengthly list.

  Reveal hidden contents

Agate Fossil Bed Nebraska, 1997 (Clinton)

Aqua Fria Arizona, 2000 (Clinton)

California Coastal, 2000 (Clinton)

Grand Canyon-Parashant, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Giant Sequoia, California 2000 (Clinton)

Hanford Reach, Washington 2000 (Clinton)

Canyon of the Ancients Colorado, 2000 (Clinton)

Cascade-Siskiyou, Oregon and California, 2000 (Clinton)

Ironwood Forest, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

President Lincoln and Soldier's Home, Washington D.C.2000 (Clinton)

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, California 2000 (Clinton)

Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona 2000 (Clinton)

Carrizo Plain California 2001 (Clinton)

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks New Mexico 2001 (Clinton)

Pompeys Pillar Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 (Clinton)

Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 (Clinton)

Virgin Islands Coral Reef U.S. Virgin Islands 2001 (Clinton)

Governors Island New York 2001 (Clinton)

African Burial Ground New York 2006 (Bush)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine Hawaii, 2006 (Bush)

World War II Valor in the Pacific Hawaii, Alaska, California, 2008 (Bush)

Marianas Trench Marine Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 2009 (Bush)

Pacific Remote Islands Marine South Southwest of Hawaii 2009 (Bush)

Rose Atoll Marine American Samoa 2009 (Bush)

Prehistoric Trackways New Mexico 2009 (Obama)

Fort Monroe Virginia 2011 (Obama)

Fort Ord California 2012 (Obama)

Chimney Rock Colorado 2012 (Obama)

César E. Chávez California 2012 (Obama)

Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers Ohio 2013 (Obama)

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Maryland 2013 (Obama)

Río Grande del Norte New Mexico 2013 (Obama)

San Juan Islands Washington 2013 (Obama)

Military Working Dog Teams Texas 2013 (Obama)

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 (Obama)

San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 (Obama)

Tule Springs Fossil Beds Nevada 2014 (Obama)

Browns Canyon Colorado 2015 (Obama)

Honouliuli Hawaii 2015 (Obama)

Pullman Illinois 2015 (Obama)

Basin and Range Nevada 2015 (Obama)

Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 (Obama)

Waco Mammoth Texas 2015 (Obama)

Castle Mountains California 2016 (Obama)

Mojave Trails California 2016 (Obama)

Sand to Snow California 2016 (Obama)

Belmont-Paul Women's Equality District of Columbia 2016 (Obama)

Stonewall New York 2016 (Obama)

Katahdin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 (Obama)

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Atlantic Ocean 2016 (Obama)

Bears Ears Utah 2016 (Obama) the one everyone fought over

Gold Butte Nevada 2016 (Obama)

Birmingham Civil Rights Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Freedom Riders Alabama 2017 (Obama)

Reconstruction Era South Carolina 2017 (Obama)

 

 

 

Going in to Yellowstone a few years ago I was lined up behind a truck with a teabagger bumper sticker on it.  I remembered thinking how ironic it was since if the people behind the teabagger movement had their way every National Park would be destroyed, strip mined down to the bedrock so those fuckhead big money asswipes behind the teabagger movement could make more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me is this has already been posted/or filed under faux news.  I was alarmed when I read the article and thought I would share it:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/24/entire-us-senate-to-go-to-white-house-for-north-korea-briefing/22053582/

Concerned : "While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved."

Are we headed into some sort of war that I just cannot even fathom...?  Or am I just being hyper-sensitive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm not sure if this has been posted; apologies if it has: "‘When I won,’ Trump thought, ‘now I’ll get good press’"

 

He really thinks he is getting good press? I mean good press from the real media, not Fox Spews. Bam Bam BAM. Off to hardware store to buy even more drywall. This head banging is getting expensive and starting to really hurt. @GreyhoundFan, did you see how now he is backing away from demanding funding for the "wall"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fraurosena said:

One of the biggest knocks on Trump as a candidate is that he doesn't know his way around the issues. He counters that argument by saying he has a "great brain" and that he knows how to make tough decisions under pressure. Using the word "everyone" when making an assertion about a policy idea serves a few purposes: It theoretically makes it easier for voters to hop on board (Everyone thinks that? Well, I sure do, too!), and it gives Trump's statements more weight. It's not just Trump saying these things – it's ALL of us!

Trump reminds me of this lawn care company salesman we had stop by a while back. The guy "negged" my front yard like the pick up artists do to their marks at bars and clubs, and then he had a stack of contracts supposedly signed by my neighbors to make me feel like I was missing out on the awesome. 

Needless to say, my bullshit alarm was triggered and no sale was made. He sighed to let me know what a huge mistake I was making, and walked off slowly, hoping I'd see him looking at my yard and shaking his head at what we could have had together. 

10 hours ago, fraurosena said:

It's our daily "Wut?" time!

'Get to Mars during my first term': Donald Trump talks to Nasa astronauts in livestream

Quote

 

Donald Trump instructed Nasa astronauts to get to Mars within his first term - or failing that, his second term, in a livestream with Peggy Whitson. [...]

Appearing to forget he had signed a bill directing Nasa to send astronauts to Mars by the 2030s, Mr Trump asked: "Tell me, Mars, what do you see a timing for actually sending humans to Mars?"

Politely, Ms Whitson replied: "Well, I think as your bill directed it will be approximately in the 2030s".

Mr Trump said: "We want to do it during my first term and at worst during my second term so we want to speed that up, OK? "

 

Two comments.

1. He does know that one needs ebil science to get to Mars, right? 

 

Once again, we ask the STEM community to perform miracles while simultaneously chastising them and cutting their funding. :pb_rollseyes:

22 minutes ago, MarblesMom said:

Forgive me is this has already been posted/or filed under faux news.  I was alarmed when I read the article and thought I would share it:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/24/entire-us-senate-to-go-to-white-house-for-north-korea-briefing/22053582/

Concerned : "While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved."

Are we headed into some sort of war that I just cannot even fathom...?  Or am I just being hyper-sensitive?

It's definitely not fake news. WaPo has an article on it with more information,  including the fact that some of our senators are perplexed at the location:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/24/senate-staff-perplexed-by-unusual-white-house-private-briefing-on-north-korea/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.d9b014941679

I remembered that your son is currently in South Korea from the thread on North and South Korea, so I understand that the North Korean situation is especially distressing for you. :pb_sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

He really thinks he is getting good press? I mean good press from the real media, not Fox Spews. Bam Bam BAM. Off to hardware store to buy even more drywall. This head banging is getting expensive and starting to really hurt. @GreyhoundFan, did you see how now he is backing away from demanding funding for the "wall"?

He is the King of Delusionalland. I did see in the WaPo, that he has suddenly "softened" his stance. Hmmm. "White House ‘confident’ of averting shutdown as Trump shows flexibility on wall"

Quote

The White House sought Monday to calm a jittery Washington ahead of a showdown with Congress over spending, and President Trump softened his demand that a deal to keep the federal government open include money to begin construction on his long-promised border wall.

Despite one-party control at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the brinkmanship that came to define spending battles in the Obama years has tumbled into the Trump era, as have the factional divisions over strategy and priorities that have gripped the GOP for a decade.

But with a Friday deadline looming to pass a new spending bill, the Trump administration projected confidence that a shutdown would be avoided. In the face of fierce Democratic opposition to funding the wall’s construction, White House officials signaled Monday that the president may be open to an agreement that includes money for border security if not specifically for a wall, with an emphasis on technology and border agents rather than a structure.

Trump showed even more flexibility Monday afternoon, telling conservative journalists in a private meeting that he was open to delaying funding for wall construction until September, a White House official confirmed.

“The president is working hard to keep the government open,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters Monday. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he was “very confident” that an agreement would be reached by Friday, but he pointedly said he could not “guarantee” that a government closure would be averted.

At issue is whether the spending measure will explicitly allocate funds toward building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — a campaign promise that was a rallying cry for Trump’s base and one on which he is eager to demonstrate progress by Saturday, his 100th day in office.

Democrats, meanwhile, gave the White House an opening, saying they would agree to some new money for border security — so long as it did not go toward the creation of a wall, something House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called “immoral.”

In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted the idea of a wall while suggesting that a combination of smart technology and law enforcement, including the use of drones, would be “a much more effective way to secure the border” without hitting an impasse in Congress.

Republicans were working to define Trump’s campaign promise down, arguing that any form of border security would fulfill it.

“There will never be a 2,200-mile wall built, period,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of immigration reform who challenged Trump in the 2016 primaries. “I think it’s become symbolic of better border security. It’s a code word for better border security. If you make it about actually building a 2,200-mile wall, that’s a bridge too far — but I’m mixing my metaphors.”

...

Since new rules about spending bills went into place after Jimmy Carter’s administration, a government shutdown has never occurred when a single political party has controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Paramount for many Republican lawmakers is funding the government, as opposed to the wall specifically. If the government shuts down, they fear, voters could blame the GOP for failing to govern, and the party could suffer the consequences in the 2018 midterm elections.

...

Even when Republicans controlled the House during the Obama administration, they could rarely pass spending bills without Democratic support. That is because a number of the House’s most conservative members often refused to support such bills, making a bipartisan majority coalition a necessity. In addition, 60 votes are needed to pass a requisite procedural vote in the Senate. With just 52 seats, Senate Republicans will need bipartisan support in that chamber as well.

Among other guarantees, Democrats want assurances that insurance subsidies through the Affordable Care Act will continue to be funded. There have been discussions among Republicans that Democrats could agree to provide money for the construction of the wall in exchange for those health funds, but Democrats have refused.

Sunday morning, congressional Democrats submitted to Republicans a compromise spending plan, which included some new money for border security but only if it did not go toward a wall. Democrats also asked for assurances that the health insurance subsidies would continue to be funded, language that would shore up benefits for coal miners and a change that would expand Medicaid benefits to people in Puerto Rico, according to a senior Democratic congressional aide.

Pelosi told reporters on a conference call Monday that Congress was “on the path to get it done until [Trump] did intervene” and that the administration’s actions so far belied his campaign promise to “make Mexico pay” for the border wall.

James Norton, a former deputy assistant undersecretary for homeland security under President George W. Bush, said funding for technologies, such as cameras and radars, on the border has dropped off since the early 2000s. He said to get money for the wall or other border security measures, the administration will have to “sell specifics” to lawmakers.

“Each part is going to need to be sold in a specific way to Congress, and they’re going to have to hit the Hill hard,” Norton said. “It won’t be easy.”

Yes, let's delay funding "the wall" until September...September 2317.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trump reminds me of this lawn care company salesman we had stop by a while back. The guy "negged" my front yard like the pick up artists do to their marks at bars and clubs, and then he had a stack of contracts supposedly signed by my neighbors to make me feel like I was missing out on the awesome. 

Needless to say, my bullshit alarm was triggered and no sale was made. He sighed to let me know what a huge mistake I was making, and walked off slowly, hoping I'd see him looking at my yard and shaking his head at what we could have had together. 

Once again, we ask the STEM community to perform miracles while simultaneously chastising them and cutting their funding. :pb_rollseyes:

It's definitely not fake news. WaPo has an article on it with more information,  including the fact that some of our senators are perplexed at the location:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/24/senate-staff-perplexed-by-unusual-white-house-private-briefing-on-north-korea/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.d9b014941679

I remembered that your son is currently in South Korea from the thread on North and South Korea, so I understand that the North Korean situation is especially distressing for you. :pb_sad:

Ugh.  I'd tell that fornicate head in the White House to knock this crap off.  We have a family member who in all likelihood died in the Korean War (he's MIA).  I don't want anyone else to lose their lives or for families to suffer because above fornicate head wants to get into a pissing contest with the Korean fornicate head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, MarblesMom said:

Forgive me is this has already been posted/or filed under faux news.  I was alarmed when I read the article and thought I would share it:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/24/entire-us-senate-to-go-to-white-house-for-north-korea-briefing/22053582/

Concerned : "While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved."

Are we headed into some sort of war that I just cannot even fathom...?  Or am I just being hyper-sensitive?

Yeah I saw this and it terrifies me! I'm afraid the Orange Menace is trying to get his approval numbers up by attacking North Korea! Sounds like what he would do, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Bears Ears Utah 2016 (Obama) the one everyone fought over

There was so much division on this by so many people, but the little Utah towns of Monticello, Blanding and Bluff are each to some degree dependent on tourism and the BLM/Forest Service offices in Monticello to support their economies.  The Bears Ears Monument can only help promote tourism is that area.  BUT, the little towns of Monticello, Blanding and Bluff were all founded by Mormon settlers, and they've not liked the Feds for a long, long time.  

However, if Trump/congress do figure out how to abolish national monuments, states rights people will wet their pants with happiness.  It would be a sad day to lose any of our national monuments.  The national monuments I'm most familiar with are  in the west and southwest and are amazing. I think that if more Americans were familiar with what could be potentially lost, that would fight hard against reversing designations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Ugh.  I'd tell that fornicate head in the White House to knock this crap off.  We have a family member who in all likelihood died in the Korean War (he's MIA).  I don't want anyone else to lose their lives or for families to suffer because above fornicate head wants to get into a pissing contest with the Korean fornicate head.

He looks at war as a ratings boost the sick fucker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/media/msnbc-rachel-maddow-winning-ratings/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

Quote

Fox News normally ranks #1 among cable news channels. But lately MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has been challenging Fox at 9 p.m., the centerpiece of the prime time schedule.

"The Rachel Maddow Show" surpassed "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in March among 25- to 54-year-old viewers, the demographic that determines advertising rates.

Maddow was on track to win again in April. But on Monday night the cable news ratings race changed dramatically. Carlson moved from 9 p.m. to 8, replacing Bill O'Reilly, and Fox's 5 p.m. talk show "The Five" moved to 9.

Maddow may or may not benefit from the change. Regardless, executives all across television news have already taken notice of her recent wins.

It's about time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

He looks at war as a ratings boost the sick fucker.

Don't forget, he's also trying to distract from the talk about collusion with Russia.

 

"The Daily 202: Trump is caving on border wall funding after showing his base that he tried"

Quote

THE BIG IDEA: Donald Trump blinked first – again.

After the bluster comes the inevitable bow to reality. Last night the president backed off his demand that any deal to fund the federal government include money to start construction on his border wall. At an event with conservative journalists, Trump said he’s okay waiting until September to have this fight.

While the mainstream media will cover this as another failure, the president’s core supporters will not see it that way. They see someone fighting to keep his promises and will give him an “A” for effort.

Elites routinely blast Trump for focusing too much on his base, rather than extending an olive branch to moderates who didn’t support him last November or reaching across the aisle to Democrats.

These critiques have validity, but the president’s focus on paying his respects to the populists who powered his unexpected victory – whether rhetorically or with executive orders – is paying dividends 96 days into his term that should not be ignored. It has helped solidify his firewall of support and prevented any cracks from forming in his coalition.

Trump’s approval rating is at record lows, but he maintains credibility with his base. Our new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that his overall approval rating is 42 percent, but his rating among those who voted for him is 94 percent. Only two percent of his voters now regret doing so.

Especially after all his recent flip-flops on everything from NATO to China, the president is working to convince his supporters that he’s keeping his promises and getting things done. In our poll, 56 percent say Trump hasn’t accomplished much. Of those, 47 percent blame him while about a quarter blame congressional Republicans. Only 7 percent blame Democrats.

Trump’s posture in the border wall fight reflects a desire to shift those numbers. Immigration is one of the few populist rallying cries he has not backed away from. “My base definitely wants the border wall,” Trump told the Associated Press last Friday. “You've been to many of the rallies? The thing they want more than anything is the wall. … That wall’s getting built, okay? One hundred percent.”

Even after he realizes the border wall is infeasible, he is unlikely to ever acknowledge it publicly because it was such a central rationale of his candidacy. “I will build a great wall,” Trump promised in his June 2015 announcement speech. “And nobody builds walls better than me, believe me. … And I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” (The Huffington Post created a timeline tracking his promises on the wall over the past two years.)

-- The president’s aides have convinced him that he can present a little bit of money for border security, especially technology and more agents, as a victory. And he will avert a government shutdown that would have raised questions about his competence and basic leadership ability, especially with the GOP in total control of Washington. Trump has already begun taking credit for a drop in illegal border crossings and a reduction in crime along the border. He says his tough enforcement policies are deterring many from trying to enter the country.

-- These dynamics mean that the White House is walking a delicate tightrope this week. While Trump is talking tough for the benefit of his base, his team has been trying to soothe the jittery nerves of Republican establishmentarians and greybeards around town. Administration officials yesterday backed off some of the ominous language they used on the Sunday shows. During his briefing, Sean Spicer said the money for the wall was always more of a priority than a demand. He also said he was “very confident” that an agreement would be reached by Friday. Compare that to what Trump was posting on Twitter around the same time:

...

-- Democratic leaders are fine appropriating money for border security, even though they know it lets Trump save face, but they are insisting on language that guarantees it will not be spent on a wall, so that they don’t get hammered by their own left flank.

-- Republicans tried to make a trade. The White House wanted $1.5 billion now for construction, and $2.6 billion more in the fall. Administration officials offered money for insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act if Democrats would go along with cash for the wall. But Democrats stayed united, and GOP negotiators backed off.

-- The biggest reason Trump is caving: There is no appetite among Republican leaders in Congress for this fight right now. Trying to help their president save face, they too are working to define Trump’s campaign promise down, arguing that any form of border security would fulfill it. From a story on the funding fight by Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and David Weigel:

“I think you’re going to get a down payment on border security generally,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a key appropriator and member of Senate leadership. He explained that “there could be a wall in some places and technology in other places,” implying that there would not be funding for the wall sketched out in campaign rhetoric.

“There will never be a 2,200-mile wall built, period,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of immigration reform who faced Trump in the 2016 primaries. “I think it’s become symbolic of better border security. It’s a code word for better border security. If you make it about actually building a 2,200-mile wall, that’s a bridge too far — but I’m mixing my metaphors.”

-- A good window into why GOP leaders are skittish: Polls consistently show that most Americans do not want a border wall. Kristine Phillips and Scott Clement review the important numbers from four surveys conducted in 2017:

...

-- Karen Tumulty wrote a fantastic profile of Rep. Will Hurd, one of the most outspoken Republican critics of Trump’s border wall, for The Post’s front page: “The vast, volatile 23rd Congressional District of Texas is bigger in area than 29 states. It stretches from San Antonio to El Paso and includes about one-third of the entire U.S.-Mexico border. (Trump’s proposed wall would cover 820 miles in the district, much of it on private property.) The district’s overwhelmingly Latino electorate last year went for Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. … Hurd narrowly won a second term in what turned out to be the most expensive House race in Texas history. Democrats have put Hurd’s seat in their top five targets in 2018. He will also be running to beat the fickle tendencies of a district that has ousted four different incumbents since 2006…

“A scorching, dusty morning last week found the 39-year-old congressman in the desert outside El Paso, at the dedication ceremony of a project he has championed for two years. A border crossing was being renamed in honor of World War I’s most decorated Texan, a Mexican immigrant named Marcelino Serna. The 5-foot-6 Serna volunteered for the Army to avoid deportation, and at one point he single-handedly captured 24 enemy soldiers and killed 26 in France. That his Mexican citizenship made him ineligible for the nation’s highest military accolade, the Medal of Honor, has long been a sore point with El Paso-area veterans. It was lost on no one there that Hurd was standing just a few hundred yards from where Trump’s wall would go. Currently, there is a fence, which local residents say has been effective in stemming illegal traffic.”

Hurd says the wall would be an inefficient, impractical and wasteful “one-size-fits-all” means of controlling illegal immigration and reducing crime.

In interviews with several dozen of Hurd’s constituents, not one expressed the opinion that building a wall is the best way to control problems on the border: “In Hurd’s district and elsewhere throughout the state, support for enhancing border security runs strong. But there are also fears that a physical wall would violate the property rights that Texans hold dear, and be a kick in the gut to a regional economy heavily dependent on cross-border trade.” (Take the time to read Karen’s full piece here.)

-- Hurd and the people he represents are not unique: “Not a single member of Congress who represents the territory on the southwest border said they support Trump’s request for $1.4 billion to begin construction of his promised wall,” according to a survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Kristina Peterson. “Most lawmakers representing the region—both Democrats and Republicans—said they are opposed and many said they have unanswered questions. A few were noncommittal, but not a single member offered support.”

...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the popcorn ready, folks.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/index.html

Quote

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.

In his ruling, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara County, the city of San Francisco and other jurisdictions, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.

In making the ruling apply nationwide, Orrick blocked the government from enforcing a key portion of Trump's January executive order on immigration, which ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department to block cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement from receiving federal funds.

While Orrick's ruling does not find the policy unconstitutional, he did find that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face "immediate irreparable harm" if the policy were allowed to be put into place, and that their constitutional challenge could succeed once the case is fully heard

The three am tweet storms should be coming along soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Trump says his first 100 days have been a historic success. History disagrees."

Quote

President Trump is fond of his first 100 days. “I don’t think that there is a presidential period of time in the first 100 days where anyone has done nearly what we’ve been able to do,” he said recently.

Ahem.

To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, let’s start with the two Hundred Days champs: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.

In his first 100 days in 1933, at the depths of the Great Depression, Roosevelt signed 15 major bills, rescuing the banking system, winding down Prohibition, slashing the budget, regulating Wall Street for the first time, limiting foreclosures, raising disastrously low crop prices, enacting bank deposit insurance and putting 250,000 young men to work through the Civilian Conservation Corps, which eventually employed 3 million Americans. Finally, Roosevelt signed the National Industrial Recovery Act, which reshaped every aspect of the American economy (though not always for the better). The country came out of its coma psychologically. One journalist observed that, for all of his shortcomings, the new president had accomplished “three magnificent things”: hope, action and self-respect.

Johnson was sworn in after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in late 1963, but his real first 100 days came in 1965 after his reelection in a landslide. The long-term impact was immense: After civil rights demonstrators were beaten in Selma, Ala., in March, he told Americans, “Their cause must be our cause, too. . . . And we shall overcome.” His stand led to the August signing of the Voting Rights Act, the most important civil rights legislation in a century. Johnson’s first 100 days also saw approval of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which brought aid to poor schools. Just after the first 100 days came Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, according to the American people, every president since Roosevelt has had a more successful debut than Trump. The latest Gallup Poll shows Trump’s approval rating at 40 percent, the only president with the support of less than half of the public at this point in his term.

In 1961, Kennedy suffered a serious setback with the botched Bay of Pigs invasion. But his humility after the fiasco and a sense of renewal in the nation sent his approval ratings to 83 percent, the highest on record for the first 100 days.

Many have lately compared Trump to Jimmy Carter, who alienated the Democratic Congress in 1977 by proposing to kill more than a dozen expensive water projects in the districts of powerful House barons. But Carter’s extraordinary grasp of complex issues when he took phone calls on CBS with Walter Cronkite and in a televised town hall meeting in Massachusetts sent his approval ratings 23 points higher than Trump’s. Even his calls for Americans to conserve energy were popular.

...

Even presidents who experienced unexceptional first 100 days have almost always had something lasting to show for it. George H.W. Bush signed legislation protecting whistleblowers. Bill Clinton won the Family and Medical Leave Act and the “Motor Voter Act” expanding voter registration. And George W. Bush didn’t win big victories at first, but within six weeks after his first 100 days, he had his big tax cut in place.

The most significant first 100 days of recent times came in 2009, when Barack Obama pushed through the second installment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — a $350 billion bank bailout — even before he took office. Then came the $787 billion stimulus, an expansion of children’s health insurance and helping to save General Motors and Chrysler. Even though no one knew at the time that the taxpayers would get their money back, Obama’s popularity was still 24 points higher than Trump’s is today.

Historians judge presidential debuts by lasting legislative achievements, not tweets or theatrics. Yes, some of Trump’s right-wing appointments and executive orders will do semi-permanent damage, though most of the orders merely study the problem and do not have the force of law.

Under Trump, the Senate did approve Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, but only after Republicans nuked long-standing Senate rules. Beyond some highly specific congressional resolutions, Trump has nothing to show so far for his promises. No major legislation has come to the Senate floor, and it looks as if none will for some time. The use of the Congressional Review Act, which allows reversal of last-minute regulations from the prior administration, is a blow, especially to the Clean Power Plan. But otherwise, if the repealed regulations were so crucial, why did Obama wait nearly eight years to issue them?

The “100 days” milestone may be artificial, but first impressions count and the first 100 days are a good indicator of success or failure in a president’s crucial first year in office.

Trump has plenty of time to recover. Past is not prologue for presidents, especially so early in their terms. But Trump’s claim to historic success so far gives new meaning to the two biggest words of his first 100 days: fake news.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article: "Inside the Trump Marriage: Melania’s Burden"

Quote

...

Traditionally, presidents have at least made a show of having healthy, happy marriages. Even the Clintons, despite marital troubles, appeared to have moments of genuine affection, humor, and bonding. But from almost the first moments of Inauguration Day, during the ceremonial arrival at the White House, it seemed something was amiss with the Trumps. Perhaps you’ve seen the clip: Donald and Melania’s black S.U.V. arrives at the White House, where Barack and Michelle Obama are waiting to greet them. Donald bolts from the car and marches up the stairs, leaving behind Melania, in her powder-blue, Jackie-esque suit, carrying a large Tiffany box. (Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton all escorted their wives at this moment.) This snapshot of the Trump marriage was soon followed by other odd moments. During Franklin Graham’s blessing, Donald turned around to look at Melania. She smiled momentarily. But once his back was turned, her face fell into a miserable frown. Later that night, as the president and First Lady had their “first dance,” twice over, to “My Way,” she was often stiff and pulling away from his face.

#SaveMelania and #SadMelania were soon trending on Twitter. The next day, protesters at the Women’s March carried signs that said, FREE MELANIA. A fashion fixture who’s known the Trump clan for decades shared with me his fantasy: “My dream is that Michelle Obama will convince her to leave him, and she’ll become this great feminist icon. She will walk into the middle of everything and say, ‘He’s crazy. This is nuts. I don’t know what I was doing!’ ”

Alas, a Hollywood ending this exciting is unlikely. After two high-maintenance wives, Donald Trump seems deliberately to have chosen as his third a woman who would be both bombshell and cipher, a physical testament to his manhood and amazingness. She would be decorative and polite, not needy and annoying. “I’m not a nagging wife,” Melania has declared a couple of times—her manifesto. According to some of Trump’s friends and associates, she has stuck to it.

“She enjoys her role of stepping back and letting him take center stage,” says decorator friend William Eubanks, who spent Thanksgiving with the Trumps at Mar-a-Lago, along with romance-novel-cover model Fabio and boxing promoter Don King. According to Lisa Bytner, who did P.R. for Trump Model Management when it was launched in 1999, and became a friend of the couple’s, Trump found in Melania the perfect mate. “She doesn’t make waves,” says Bytner. “She speaks only when spoken to. She’s just very sweet.” Except, in public, when called upon to defend her husband’s demeaning attitudes toward women, or to be a mouthpiece for some of his offensive claims, such as birtherism.

...

The union made perfect sense for Donald too. After demanding Ivana and needy Marla, Melania would be the perfect mate, one who would be an advertisement for his virility while giving him his “space.” Federico Pignatelli, a longtime Trump friend and business associate, who founded the fashion studio Pier 59, says, “Ivana was an intelligent, entrepreneurial woman. Also a very strong-minded person and very feisty. While instead, Melania . . . really no fights.” For her part, Melania would get a luxurious home where she could indulge her hobbies—Pilates and reading fashion magazines, according to People—in peace, and a promise that she would never have to return to drab Eastern-European prospects. Donald accompanied Melania to her homeland once. “I was there for about 13 minutes,” he later said to Larry King with Melania by his side. “We landed. I said, Hi, Mom. Hi, Dad. Bye.” Eventually Trump brought her family over to New York (where her parents now live for most of the year), allowing her to cut ties with the Old Country.

...

About six months after they married, she became pregnant with Barron—and things changed, according to one source. She was 35—“checkout time” for women, as Trump once told Howard Stern-and no longer the dewy fox he’d met seven years earlier. A visitor to one of Trump’s homes, late into Melania’s pregnancy, recalls him remarking that he agreed to the baby on the condition that Melania would get her body back. “She promised him that everything would go back to the way it was,” says this guest; it struck this person as a “contract.” And he was simply rude to her. “There was no ‘How do you feel?’ No opening of doors, making sure she didn’t fall. Just ‘You wanted to have a baby.’ ” (Grisham counters that Mr. Trump was “very warm and supportive throughout her pregnancy.”)

...

As the gorgeous wife of a Manhattan billionaire, Melania has had every opportunity to become a fixture on the gala-going benefit circuit. But that would presume an interest in social status or a cause. As Bytner recalls, “She was passionate about . . . Well, I can’t think what she was passionate about.” Her official White House biography has scant evidence of philanthropy, referring to single events she participated in as “Honorary Chairwoman” some 10 years ago, and the time in 2008 she rang the closing bell at NASDAQ for National Love Our Children Day. “The Trumps don’t comport themselves by the rules that are important to people, especially people on the Upper East Side,” says Wednesday Martin, author of a memoir called Primates of Park Avenue, which chronicles the ways of Manhattan’s rich and privileged. “They’ve rejected out of hand the established rites and rituals of philanthropy—which are to have a cause, have an event, buy a table and get your friends to, and then do the same for them.” New York society ladies paint a picture of a woman with an extraordinary interest in maintaining her beauty and in this she has succeeded wildly. Even among the devoted SoulCycle set, Melania makes everyone feel dowdy by comparison, says a woman in that circle.

...

But then he clinched the nomination, and more Melania participation was required—which, alas, did not do her any favors. In February 2016, in an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, Melania expounded on illegal immigration, using her personal story as an example of model behavior. “I followed the law . . . . And you should do that. You should not just say, O.K., let me stay here. And whatever happens happens.”

To some, this statement pointed up a lack of compassion toward a group she herself is part of. Her immigration attorney Michael Wildes, who worked for Trump Models and the Miss Universe pageant, denies that Melania’s stance toward fellow immigrants is unsympathetic, likening her to “the biblical Queen Esther” on this issue. When I pressed him to explain how, specifically, Melania has demonstrated concern for immigrants, he put me on hold for some time, and returned with what sounded like a carefully crafted non sequitur: “She’s extremely thoughtful and sincere about asking about family members who are not in her circle. She’s fully aware of your family.”

...

There were signs that the pressure was taking its toll on Melania. At Columbia Prep Parents Night, shortly after the recording was released, “she looked really thin, tired, and sad,” recalls a parent. “Nobody was talking to her. Nobody knew what to say.” But Election Day was right around the corner, and duty called. As a potential First Lady, Melania needed to come up with a “platform.” On November 3, she gave her first solo speech since the debacle at the Republican convention, and announced that she intended to fight . . . cyberbullying, a claim she made seemingly with no awareness that she was married to the worst cyberbully on the planet. Was she really that clueless?

Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus—whom Trump attacked on Twitter as “a real dummy” and a “major loser” after she criticized him on CNN—believes “it was the height of spoiled self-centeredness. Of a very privileged, wealthy woman looking only at herself, who clearly has no thoughts or care for the people her husband has damaged, ruined, and traumatized by his cyberbullying.” Again, Melania was pilloried by the media. On the plus side, the election was in five days, and the prospect of Trump winning was then estimated to be as little as 10 percent.

...

But as this article was going to press, she hadn’t yet done anything about cyberbullying. Offers have been made to gather experts in the field to educate her. When asked what Melania intends to do with the issue, a source in frequent contact with the Trumps shrugs and says noncommittally, “I suspect she’ll do something.” (Grisham says the First Lady “continues to work on building her agenda in a thoughtful way . . . . She likes things to be done right, and doing things right takes time.”)

“The only action Melania Trump has taken in regard to cyberbullying is in regard to herself,” Cheri Jacobus told me. She may have a point. In February, Melania successfully settled with a blogger, for a “substantial sum,” according to her lawyer, for making the unsubstantiated claim that she’d been an escort. She filed a $150 million suit against the Web site of the Daily Mail for reporting the claim. The suit alleged that the defamatory statement destroyed her “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to make millions during this “multiyear term” in which she is “one of the most photographed women in the world.” Only after the media pointed out that the wording implied a blatant intention to profit from the presidency was that part taken out. (The tabloid and its Web site retracted the article, but the suit went ahead, ending in mid-April when the Daily Mail and MailOnline issued an official apology and paid damages reported to be around $3 million.)

...

Despite official statements that Melania will move to Washington at the end of the school year, at press time the Trumps had still not announced a D.C.-area school for Barron. According to a well-placed member of the Washington education community, they had not yet applied to some of the schools one might have imagined. A St. Albans parent notes, “There’s been no ‘Barron will be going to my school’ ” sort of dish one might expect. (Grisham says, “They are still looking at a few schools.”)

...

The picture (in the article)  of Agent Orange, Melania, and Ivanka from 2004 is stomach-turning. Agent Orange is hugging and kissing Ivanka while turned away from Melania. Blech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interesting article: "Inside the Trump Marriage: Melania’s Burden"

The picture (in the article)  of Agent Orange, Melania, and Ivanka from 2004 is stomach-turning. Agent Orange is hugging and kissing Ivanka while turned away from Melania. Blech.

That picture is particularly gross.  Even for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.