Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Remember that time when people were actually gullible enough to think that Trump's promise to drain the swamp meant something? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N

Shares of ETP, the company building the 450,000 barrel-a-day Dakota pipeline, ended the day up 3.5 percent in U.S. trading.

Trump owned ETP stock through at least mid-2016, according to financial disclosure forms, and ETP's chief executive, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to his campaign.

Hey man, as long as he's not picking winners and losers or anything.

Starting to wonder if we're going to see AIM revitalized into a serious national force. The FBI pulled seriously shady gak to get that movement to spend more time literally killing each other, but they almost became a resident US version of the IRA back in the late 70s and early 80s.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/donald-trump-budget-cuts-arts-humanities-nea-neh-npr-cbs-president-a7536741.html

It's official, the "feth the arts" decision is happening.

feth him with a bent fork.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/president-donald-trump-arts-funding-nea-neh-cpb-prs-npr-petition-white-house-a7541631.html

Looks like some good old fashioned 'structural readjustment policies' are being implemented in the US. This should work out great for us.

Also, a list of all federal agencies that are now not allowed to communicate.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/list-of-federal-government-agencies-told-not-to-communicate-with-the-public/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/donald-trump-budget-cuts-arts-humanities-nea-neh-npr-cbs-president-a7536741.html

It's official, the "feth the arts" decision is happening.

feth him with a bent fork.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/president-donald-trump-arts-funding-nea-neh-cpb-prs-npr-petition-white-house-a7541631.html

Say good bye to your museums and heritage sites America. Donald Trump finds history inconvenient.

I actually found this somewhat interesting, and by interesting I mean convenient.

 LordofHats wrote:


I actually found this somewhat interesting, and by interesting I mean convenient.

Are there many instances where that's happened before? Yes, I can see the Trump administration finding that whole petition system being a problem, and something they'd either filter the results of or do away entirely.

I keep getting flashes from "It Can't Happen Here", which I suppose is a rather obvious line to make.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


I actually found this somewhat interesting, and by interesting I mean convenient.

Are there many instances where that's happened before? Yes, I can see the Trump administration finding that whole petition system being a problem, and something they'd either filter the results of or do away entirely.

I keep getting flashes from "It Can't Happen Here", which I suppose is a rather obvious line to make.

That sounds a lot like a literature or arts reference you're making, pal. Not in mah country!

Don't know if this has been posted allready but it is funny

The Netherlands welcomes the new American President!

In other news, the State Department no longer contains any information whatsoever about LGBT persons; because apparently in Trump's world if you don't talk about them they don't exist

This quote is particularly cutting;

"Donald Trump is already sending a clear signal that he has no intention of serving as the president of all Americans."

The great uniter everyone.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted allready but it is funny

The Netherlands welcomes the new American President!

Spoiler:

[youtube]

Yep that video is pretty epic. That was also the concensus of most of my Trump and Republican supporting aquaintences.

Some more humor for you....Ted Cruz and Deadspin


View image on Twitter


Edit.....ah gawd just finished reading a lot of the follow on tweets.......

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted allready but it is funny

The Netherlands welcomes the new American President!

Spoiler:

[youtube]

Yep that video is pretty epic. That was also the concensus of most of my Trump and Republican supporting aquaintences.

Some more humor for you....Ted Cruz and Deadspin


View image on Twitter


Edit.....ah gawd just finished reading a lot of the follow on tweets.......

Wait is that actual Ted Cruz responding to that challenge?

Cause if so that's pretty epic XD

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Actually I don't believe it does. The laws don't get used often as you said, but I believe one case they were successfully used was against a person who published on a website denying the holocaust. According to wikipedia the federal "Racial Discrimination Act 1975"

Okay, I'm not sure of the case you're mentioning or the legal history. The laws for incitement for violence were passed by various states in the early 00s. The Racial Discrimination Act is federal law passed in the 1970s. Maybe they interact in some way but I don't know how.

But as you say, individual states also have their own laws, but several of them are "vilification" and "vilification" doesn't have to mean a specific call to action, it can be inciting hatred, contempt. ridicule and that sort of stuff.

That's why we've had people speaking out against our laws, because even though they aren't necessarily used all that frequently and often get thrown out even when they are sought to be used, they do linger close to the whole "oppression of free speech" and border on the line of having a right to not be offended.

The laws against villification are different, more recent, and much more problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I always marry for huge tracks of land.

I believe in traditional marriage, which is why I've committed my pre-pubescent daughter in marriage to a French nobleman in order to secure an alliance.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Now I don't agree with a blanket dept wide ban on media interaction. The EPA should have a dedicated spokesperson and website through which they communicate with the public and the media. I personally think Trumps policy on this is hamfosted short sighted and counterproductive but I don't think it's illegal. Possibly there are govt transparency laws that the EPA must comply with and issue updates current policy and status to the public and or Congress but I don't know for sure on that.

Yeah, Trump ordering a blanket ban is hamfisted and gives a pretty good sign that we are going to see a very ugly 4 years in terms of agency and executive relations, and not just with EPA. But it is nowhere close to illegal - employers are allowed to tell how employees interact with the public, including telling them not to interact at all.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

What a wonderful example of the many ways for-profit-healthcare is horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So after 8 years of "Obama will declare martial law", Trump
Now promises to send federal troops to takeover Chicago?

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

What a wonderful example of the many ways for-profit-healthcare is horrible.

I fully expect that there will be no investigation, no demand for corporate responsibility, and that this will continue to be cited as an example of why Obamacare was "failing."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So after 8 years of "Obama will declare martial law", Trump
Now promises to send federal troops to takeover Chicago?

I'm not seeing enough flag waving here D. Don't make me report you to the Trumpstapo.

Trumpstapo? Maybe they will have stylish throwbacks to other keepers of civil order.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure anyone is claiming it's illegal, it's just a gakky rule, meant to silence naysayers.

To be a bit pedantic, there is nothing wrong with putting in place a policy to silence naysayers. That's good management.

The problem here is that the Trump administration is that by putting in place a blanket ban on all communication, they are assuming everyone is a naysayer just by virtue of working at the EPA. That's the start of a dysfunctional relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I will not tolerate such comments on National Patriotism Day!

You're late by about four days, Frazz.

So was Trump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember that time when people were actually gullible enough to think that Trump's promise to drain the swamp meant something? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N

Shares of ETP, the company building the 450,000 barrel-a-day Dakota pipeline, ended the day up 3.5 percent in U.S. trading.

Trump owned ETP stock through at least mid-2016, according to financial disclosure forms, and ETP's chief executive, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to his campaign.

This is the problem with Trump refusing to divest his business interests. Building pipelines are more important to Republicans than Jesus, so this project would be happening no matter who gave money to Trump, or how much Trump owned of the pipeline. But when you own stock in companies it looks dodgy no matter what.

And of course, we're inevitably going to see a whole bunch more Trump decisions that are done purely to improve his own businesses, because the guy is a two bit hustler.


Mostly though this is just funny, because we just went through a year of Republicans pretending to be so concerned about money being given to the Clinton foundation and so they voted for Trump. You couldn't write this stuff as parody.

Trump can't help but assume the EPA is his enemy because he is a Climate Change Denier and the EPA like nearly all scientific environmental organisations is seriously concerned about it happening.

Add the general Republican idea that everyone is in it for the money, so the EPA only exists to get cushy jobs for its staff, and you have the basis for a very toxic relationship before it even begins.

Here's a good summation of why Trump's CIA speach was so horrible, from Kurt Eichenwald (among other things he writes for the NYT so I guess some of you can use that as an excuse to ignore this... mainstream media bias or something or other). Copy pasted off twitter;

I am going to try to explain why there is so much outrage in the intelligence agencies about what Trump did on Saturday in his CIA speech...
…Imagine having a campaign rally at the National Cemetary. Or a cocktail fundraiser amid the grave markers of US soldiers in Normandy…
...this "event'' Trump held, purportedly to greet CIA employees, was in the Memorial Wall room, where 117 CIA employees who died in...
...service to our country are honored. Many more have died, and it takes special approval to receive a star on the wall or be listed in...
...the book, called the Book of Honor. Many of the names of the fallen will never be known, because their identities have to be kept...
..secret even in death. Rarely is that room used for anything, but when it is, solemn nature of it is recognized. GW Bush was, I believe...
...the first president to hold an event there in 2001, but it was exceedingly respectful and in keeping with the meaning of the room. The...
...second major event was an appearance by Obama after the killing of Bin Laden, when he went to the CIA to thank the people there for their...
...often anonymous sacrifices that led to that success in the fight against terrorism. Again, solemn and fitting with the meaning of the...
...room. Both Bush and Obama paid deep homage to those honored in the book and by the stars. CIA employees listened respectfully, but did...
..not turn the events into rallies. Then, Trump. He has the audacity to bring people from his team to cheer for him and sit in the front...
...rows. I can't imagine CIA employees cheering and whooping it up at Memorial Wall. It would be like screaming "BOO-yah!" at a funeral...
..Trump made a single, over-the-shoulder mention of the stars. But he spent most of his time griping about the media, bragging about the...
...number of times he had been on the cover of Time Magazine, and complaining that everyone was lying about numbers at his inauguration....
...and all the while, his professional cheerleaders who couldn't find their way to the CIA bathroom are sitting there, cheering for the....
..man who apparently needs applause everywhere he goes. It was an abomination, perhaps the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen...
...done by any president in that kind of place. I felt sure we would hear from former director Brennan pretty fast. Why? Because one of...
...those stars on the wall belongs to a close friend of his who died in service of this country. And he knows who all the others are as...
..well. For him, I'm sure, it was like watching someone having a picnic on the graves in the National Cemetery. And then the same Trump....
..staff that was too lazy or stupid to do the advance work on the CIA trip, so that they knew the meaning of the wall, go on TV to attack...
...Brennan as a partisan hack for wanting a room of such enormous meaning to be treated with the solemnity it deserves. And that is an...
..important element here. I actually don't blame Trump for this horror show on Saturday. Few people outside of govnt know the meaning of...
...the wall. That was his staff's job, and they clearly had no idea what they were sending Trump to do. No sane person would agree to....
...send a cheering squad. They are incompetent. Worse, they are arrogant, and respond to others pointing out their undeniable errors by...
...attacking and whining. No, anger at the dishonoring of patriots who died is not partisan. U don't want criticism? Do your jobs better....
...and when you screw up, like you did by turning most solemn place in intel world as a rah-rah location, just admit it, apologize, and move on.

But of course, we were all assured that it didn't matter that Trump knew little to nothing about the government he wanted to lead, because he was going to appoint the very best people to advise him. Turns out clueless dolts employ clueless dolts, and then they gak on government agencies in pointless, thoughtless ways.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump can't help but assume the EPA is his enemy because he is a Climate Change Denier and the EPA like nearly all scientific environmental organisations is seriously concerned about it happening.

Add the general Republican idea that everyone is in it for the money, so the EPA only exists to get cushy jobs for its staff, and you have the basis for a very toxic relationship before it even begins.

Very true. But all that probably describes Bush's opening assumptions about the EPA, and he still managed to try and walk the EPA slowly towards a new direction. Trump just goes straight at it, brute force with an expectation of meek compliance. And for what it's worth, the first administrator of the EPA that Bush appointed, Christine Whitman, thinks that Trump's pick of Pruitt is a disaster.

I'm hearing that there will be an executive order this week to start building the wall.

I dread to think how this is going to play out.

 sebster wrote:


I am going to try to explain why there is so much outrage in the intelligence agencies about what Trump did on Saturday in his CIA speech...
…Imagine having a campaign rally at the National Cemetary. Or a cocktail fundraiser amid the grave markers of US soldiers in Normandy…
...this "event'' Trump held, purportedly to greet CIA employees, was in the Memorial Wall room, where 117 CIA employees who died in...
...service to our country are honored. Many more have died, and it takes special approval to receive a star on the wall or be listed in...
...the book, called the Book of Honor. Many of the names of the fallen will never be known, because their identities have to be kept...
..secret even in death. Rarely is that room used for anything, but when it is, solemn nature of it is recognized. GW Bush was, I believe...
...the first president to hold an event there in 2001, but it was exceedingly respectful and in keeping with the meaning of the room. The...
...second major event was an appearance by Obama after the killing of Bin Laden, when he went to the CIA to thank the people there for their...
...often anonymous sacrifices that led to that success in the fight against terrorism. Again, solemn and fitting with the meaning of the...
...room. Both Bush and Obama paid deep homage to those honored in the book and by the stars. CIA employees listened respectfully, but did...
..not turn the events into rallies. Then, Trump. He has the audacity to bring people from his team to cheer for him and sit in the front...
...rows. I can't imagine CIA employees cheering and whooping it up at Memorial Wall. It would be like screaming "BOO-yah!" at a funeral...
..Trump made a single, over-the-shoulder mention of the stars. But he spent most of his time griping about the media, bragging about the...
...number of times he had been on the cover of Time Magazine, and complaining that everyone was lying about numbers at his inauguration....
...and all the while, his professional cheerleaders who couldn't find their way to the CIA bathroom are sitting there, cheering for the....
..man who apparently needs applause everywhere he goes. It was an abomination, perhaps the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen...
...done by any president in that kind of place. I felt sure we would hear from former director Brennan pretty fast. Why? Because one of...
...those stars on the wall belongs to a close friend of his who died in service of this country. And he knows who all the others are as...
..well. For him, I'm sure, it was like watching someone having a picnic on the graves in the National Cemetery. And then the same Trump....
..staff that was too lazy or stupid to do the advance work on the CIA trip, so that they knew the meaning of the wall, go on TV to attack...
...Brennan as a partisan hack for wanting a room of such enormous meaning to be treated with the solemnity it deserves. And that is an...
..important element here. I actually don't blame Trump for this horror show on Saturday. Few people outside of govnt know the meaning of...
...the wall. That was his staff's job, and they clearly had no idea what they were sending Trump to do. No sane person would agree to....
...send a cheering squad. They are incompetent. Worse, they are arrogant, and respond to others pointing out their undeniable errors by...
...attacking and whining. No, anger at the dishonoring of patriots who died is not partisan. U don't want criticism? Do your jobs better....
...and when you screw up, like you did by turning most solemn place in intel world as a rah-rah location, just admit it, apologize, and move on.

I'm confused... Should I dislike Trump more, or should I dislike the CIA less?

This is a very challenging decision for me

But of course, we were all assured that it didn't matter that Trump knew little to nothing about the government he wanted to lead, because he was going to appoint the very best people to advise him. Turns out clueless dolts employ clueless dolts, and then they gak on government agencies in pointless, thoughtless ways.

I think what we're really looking at is

1) a man who has no idea how government works and assumes that as President he has absolute authority over executive departments (which he does not have legally or otherwise). His executive actions are actually very strange when you read them. Take his National Day of Patriotism, and setting aside the stupidity of announcing it four days late watch is conference. Trump is either really good at playing dumb, or he really doesn't understand that he can't just make a new holiday. The document itself is worded such as to be a legal, if pointless, order, but at the same time it's apparent intent is to do something he can't actually do. The pipeline order is the same. Trump can't actually magic the pipeline into existence (the presidents ability to bypass regulation requirements only goes so far), which his order doesn't do that, but at the same time that appears to be it's intent. We have may have literally elected a man who doesn't know the executive powers and needs a writing staff of lawyers to cover for him.

2) an attempt by the Administration as an institution to brow beat the Executive branch into compliance with ideology over policy, particularly elements of that branch that are by their very nature contrary to Trump's agenda. It's not just an assertion of his agenda or his ideology, it's a show of power.

3) Maybe not all hope is lost, because as spineless as the Republicans might be, we keep seeing government employees speak out which means there's still someone(s) in the Federal government with a sense of the responsibility they hold. So, silver lining


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm hearing that there will be an executive order this week to start building the wall.

I dread to think how this is going to play out.

Really that's just another display of how Trump doesn't actually know the Presidential powers. He can't just order the wall to be built. Sure he can say it, but without the funds from Congress he can't actually do it without breaking the law.

And of course I fully expect there will be no complaints about executive overreach

True, Congress needs to give the green light to funding, but seeing that it's in the hands of the GOP, I shouldn't think that would be a problem.

Plus, Trump has a few billion stashed away. He could probably build it with his own cash

I have no idea if the US constitution allows a president to fund something with their own money

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
True, Congress needs to give the green light to funding, but seeing that it's in the hands of the GOP, I shouldn't think that would be a problem.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that.

One the wall will without doubt become a financial black hole, two I think there are some Republicans who know it won't work and is an utter waste of tax dollars, and three there are probably some strategists who recognize that the the party is losing with the fastest growing demographic in the country almost solely because of the immigration platform it espouses. They cannot simultaneously do everything on Trump's agenda (the wall, deportations of DREAM children, shutting down early voting) unless they want to forever seal that demographic as lost.

Hispanics turned out in a record number in the 2016 election, and Trump still falls way behind how the party was doing there 20 years ago. Bush won 44% of the hispanic vote in 2004, opposed to Trump's 26-29%, and he'll probably lose on that if the wall is actually built because the indications are that some of his hispanic support came from people who didn't think his agenda would go through. Worse off there are bad signs in traditionally Red States on this, namely Texas. Obama lost Texas in 2012 by 16%. Hillary only lost it by 9%. Hillary Clinton of all Democrats gained ground in Texas. A lot of that will probably come down to "never Trump" Republicans not turning out, but it's a bad sign for the GOP considering the demographic changes in the state.

I have no idea if the US constitution allows a president to fund something with their own money

...

I have no idea...

I don't think it matters to Trump. He will make a big grandstand show of writing out the orders, do a self-promotional Tweet, his supporters get excited.

When nothing happens it will be someone else's fault.

LordofHats

You're working under the assumption that the GOP is operating on a rational basis, having clearly considered the arguments with its usual tact and common sense.

I admire your naïve belief that the GOP has been operating like a normal political party these past years.

Yes, they can block this, but given their recent track record, they are justly as likely to allow Trump a budget of $500 billion to build the wall.

That is also true, but I'm good with Trump making a fool of himself on this. We do not need this damn boondoggle. I can't imagine any proposed policy that would be a bigger waste of money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
LordofHats

You're working under the assumption that the GOP is operating on a rational basis, having clearly considered the arguments with its usual tact and common sense.

I don't think they do, but if Glenn Beck can see the madness then I think there's reason to think that not everyone in the party is this crazy.

Yes, they can block this, but given their recent track record, they are justly as likely to allow Trump a budget of $500 billion to build the wall.

The party itself doesn't have to block. You'd only need a few of them in the Senate and House to cross party lines and join the Dems on the issue and the issue can be stalled out.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it matters to Trump. He will make a big grandstand show of writing out the orders, do a self-promotional Tweet, his supporters get excited.

When nothing happens it will be someone else's fault.

When the concrete wall is replaced with a discounted roll of barbed wire from Homebase*, China will be blamed for transforming the bricks into wire

for non Brits, Homebase is a large UK store chain that specialises in DIY.

For us that would be Home Depot

 LordofHats wrote:
That is also true, but I'm good with Trump making a fool of himself on this. We do not need this damn boondoggle. I can't imagine any proposed policy that would be a bigger waste of money.


... ... .

I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.

Let's give Trump some credit. he promised an economic boom, and he has been proven right.

Sales of George Orwell's 1984 have surged in the wake of alternative facts saga

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/24/george-orwell-1984-sales-surge-kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts

And people had the nerve to say that culture would decrease under Trump. Well, book sales are going up!