US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Phantom Roxas]

 

This has no chill, and is amazing for it

Except it's moving the goalposts. The criticism against other countries influencing the election is specifically in reference to Russia, so talking about Mexico instead does nothing to address the criticisms about Russia's influence.

 

 

In other news, one of Trump's campaign co-chairmen made incredibly racist remarks about Barack and Michelle Obama, with some additional transphobia against Michelle. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-campaign-official-wants-michelle-obama-to-be-let-loose-to-live-with-african-apes/

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except it's moving the goalposts. The criticism against other countries influencing the election is specifically in reference to Russia, so talking about Mexico instead does nothing to address the criticisms about Russia's influence.

 

 

In other news, one of Trump's campaign co-chairmen made incredibly racist remarks about Barack and Michelle Obama, with some additional transphobia against Michelle. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-campaign-official-wants-michelle-obama-to-be-let-loose-to-live-with-african-apes/

*shrugs*

 

Russia doesn't matter as long as the information was true. If the Chinese have stuff on Trump, they should have shared. I want to be an informed voted

 

The guy has a history of saying stuff like that, New Yorkers know not to take him srsly. But if it's condemnation you want, you can have it. It was gross

 

Not that I have any pity for Obama after the sheet he pulled with the UN today

[mido9]

[Map of google]

 

I thought this one was really funny:

 

"What does deplorable mean?" and "Is Hillary a lesbian" were hilarious af to me.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Chris Christie meme

 

 

Is that like a sad white Pepe

[Aerion Brightflame]

So I've been doing some incredibly basic amount of digging into the Carrier story from a few weeks back. Because it really didn't require much digging.

 

For those who don't remember, the story was that Carrier, a US based manufactorer was planning on moving it's production to Mexico instead of the US. Two seperate  plants were the source of some 2100 jobs in Indiana.Trump managed to negotiate Carrier retaining about 1100 jobs in Indiana, which seems like a win right? Before the president even stepped into office, he managed to keep 1100 jobs on US soil, must be all good?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/04/trumps-carrier-deal-means-nothing-for-future-jobs/#2f8b850e4c7b

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/03/donald-trump-carrier-factory-indiana-jobs-tax-breaks

 

A forbes and a Guardian article that go into some level of detail into this. It's the source for the figures quoted below, and basically follow the same line of logic I'm using here.

 

Funnily enough, no, it is not all good;

• If we actually pay attention to the details, Trump only actually saved 800 jobs; 300 jobs within the two factories were White-Collar jobs never in danger of being relocated in the first place, so Trump saved only about 44% of the jobs.
• Whilst a plant in Indianopolis was being kept domestic, the second plant in Huntington would still be closing, thus still costing Americans jobs.
• Carrier would still be sending 1300~ jobs to Mexico; Trump didn't actually disuade the company from moving jobs, simply persuading them to keep some semblance of domestic workforce. He couldn't actually outweigh the financial benefits of moving.
• But that's okay right? Trump still saved 800 jobs from going out of the US? He kept 800 jobs on US soil? For a while maybe; Carrier in the past month has announced it's plans to automate the Indianpolis plant in order to keep costs down. And the automation will cost an as unyet unknown number of jobs. Because Carrier produces what are essentially low skill requirement goods, and thus can be readily automated http://theresurgent.com/carrier-plans-to-automate-indiana-plant-eliminating-many-jobs/
• So that further proposes the question; Why did Carrier keep the jobs on domestic soil if it's not financially viable to do so? Clearly the 7 Million Dollar Tax break over 10 years isn't enough; (Which coincidentally works out to be a saving of around $875 per year per job, which makes it pretty obvious that it's not enough). The speculation currently is that Trump essentially blackmailed Carrier over defence contracts; without said contracts the company wouldn't actually be profitable.
• You can think that this is unethical, or unviable or the opposite. That's up for debate; it's kinda irrelevant to the point I'm wanting to make, which is that Trump didn't actually win. He didn't solve, or come close to solving an issue that's been happening in the US for years now. It's not a big buisness win that he can replicate, and replicate and replicate and bring the nation to success; Because you are still going to lose the majority of the jobs that would have been saved. Because the jobs are leaving for a reason. 

So again, this is a really brief look at the situation. And as I've expressed before, I don't really understand economics on a national scale. But I understand enough to cast shadow upon Trump's otherwise unilateral victory.

 

And again, it highlights that automation remains an issue that you can't just sweep under the rug. There is a reason it is happening, and a reason why it is preferable. It requires a direct solution. Blackmailing companies into staying on domestic shores is not a solution to the issues of automation. It certaintly won't make coal viable again.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Agreed, Economic Fascism needs an engine to work. That engine is the America Works type deal he's pushing. The sooner he gets Regulations cut, repatriations started, and infastructure underway, the better.

 

He needs to create them low skill jobs fast. As for coal...better to automate mining tbh. Trump is killing his most loyal voters by pushing for increased manual mining. There are other low skill jobs those workers can do that will give them decent pay and not kill them

 

He did it to like 6 other companies since carriar, but it's not self sufficient

[Dad]

Our education system is about to go further downhill. It's gonna be a long four years.

[cr47t]

Our education system is about to go further downhill. It's gonna be a long four years.

Wait, what happened? Did DeVos get voted in?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait, what happened? Did DeVos get voted in?

Seems that way, I don't see which 3 republicans would vote against her to make her lose sadly

 

On the other hand, McCain seems on board with Tillerson, so it's not all bad

[Dad]

No, it's all bad.  This is the same woman who said "public education shouldn't exist".  I'm a student at a public university.  I have siblings at public highschools.  This is unfair and bad for all of us.  

[VCR_CAT]

No, it's all bad.  This is the same woman who said "public education shouldn't exist".  I'm a student at a public university.  I have siblings at public highschools.  This is unfair and bad for all of us.  

 

This is really, really bad. Private institutions can be exorbitantly expensive, and there's enough problems with affordability when it comes to post-secondary alone. There are a lot of things in a country that should not be privatized completely, and holy crap is education one of them. Not only is it already really hard for a lot of people to get into post-secondary to get the degrees and qualifications they need to acquire stable and well-paying jobs, imagine how much more difficult it will be for a lot more people when suddenly families need to try and afford private secondary or even primary schooling. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, it's all bad.  This is the same woman who said "public education shouldn't exist".  I'm a student at a public university.  I have siblings at public highschools.  This is unfair and bad for all of us.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/18/the_shameful_war_on_betsy_devos_132826.html

 

I agree her hearing was rough, but I think it's overdone

[Dad]

It's not ideal to force private schooling on parents.  Instead of closing under-performing schools, they need to be fixed and the students need better programming.  You can't shut down public education and expect it to fix itself.  That's not how it works.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not ideal to force private schooling on parents.  Instead of closing under-performing schools, they need to be fixed and the students need better programming.  You can't shut down public education and expect it to fix itself.  That's not how it works.

Is that what she said? As far as I understood, it was more offering Charter Schools as an alternative rather than closing down Public schools. Did I misunderstand. If anything it should introduce a higher standard that public schools would now have to compete with charter schools on. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Public schools can't compete with charter and private schools unless they get adequate funding.

 

It's not a case of 'Oh the competetion will force public schools to better themselves' - the public schools that are failing, and the parts of the school system that are failing are doing so for a reason. And I'd argue that a lot of it comes in the form of the fact that teaching as a profession has been hollowed out. They are paid s***, treated like s*** , and are for the most part unable to actually do anything but teach to standardised tests. Which isn't useful or applicable to the real world. The competition won't improve standards because education is a nessecity; people need it, which means no matter how awful schools are, they are going to still exist.

 

I don't know if it's the case in the US, but the UK is running into an issue where teacher burnout far exceeds the amount of teachers coming in. And that's an issue when the schooling population is still technically increasing. I read the other day that schools can't even afford up to date text books because of the funding issue.

 

If one wants to fix the issue with education, one has to invest in it. Invest in teachers, invest in equipment. And more importantly, stop f***ing around with them and give them some level of autonomity back. Remove funding being associated with results. And one should happily invest in it, because education pays for itself, and then some.

 

Teachers have been asked to do more with less for maybe a decade now, and it simply isn't working.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Teacher Union in America is prime example of bureaucratic waste. They've been doing less with more actually. IDK how it is in the UK

[Dad]

Teacher Union in America is prime example of bureaucratic waste. They've been doing less with more actually. IDK how it is in the UK

 

I was just gonna say what Aerion was talking about was both true and false.  A lot of teachers have been managing to do more with less.  And though it is impressive, and a lot of students benefit from it, the majority of students overall in public education are missing out.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I would contest that teachers should ever have to be in the position to do more with less,given education is an investiment and thus should be of the highest quality possible. If I find the time, I will also try and collate stats about performance relative to funding levels in the US education system; I.E. If the places that have 'done more with less' tend to be from higher funded areas anyway. If only because it's my suspicsion that these teachers that 'do more with less' are teachers in suburbna and affluent areas, and thus have an easier time of teaching anyway.

 

In other news:

 

Donald Trump was sworn in yesterday, admists violent protest on the streets of Washington (Which included amonst other things 200~ arrests, 6 injuries to law enforcement and a limo being burned to the ground).

 

We also have the updated Whitehouse.gov website, which gives our first real inclinging of the realities of what the Trump Adminstration intends to do:

• The America First Energy Plan; A plan to tap into the estimated 50 trillion of shale gases, oil and natural gas reserves within the US. Additionally he intends to commit towards 'clean coal technology', and to revivie the US coal industry. He states that he seeks energy indepedance from OPEC, but will retain tight freindships with those in the Gulf. Finally he says that his government will be committed to preserving America's clean waters and clean air. This is inspite saying in the opening paragraph that the Waters of the US act, and the Climate Action Plan are harmful and uneeded, and that there removal will allow up to 30 Billion in wage increases. Money made from these measures will be used to repair and revitalise American infrastructure.
• America First Foriegn Policy - Peace through Strength. He seeks to reverse the decrease in American Military strength since the 90's, such that US military dominance must be unquestioned. The destruction of ISIS and other Islamic radical groups will be the highest priority, he will seek to increase intellegence sharing, cut funding and dismantle propoganda and recruiting. Diplomacy will be America focused, and he will be willing to make friends of enemies.
• Bringing Back Jobs and Growth - He intendeds to create 25 million new jobs, and bring economic growth up to 4%.First of all is his tax plan; He intends to simplify the tax code, lower rates for every tax bracket, lower the corporate tax rate as well. He claims 2 trillion dollars are lost to needless regulation, and has ordered a moratorium upon new ones. He asks all head of departments to seek and remove job killing regulations. He plans also to renegotiate existing trade deals, and be harsher on future ones in order to ensure the best possible deal for the US, and one that will punish those who seek to take advantage of US workers.
• Making our Military Strong Again - He will end the defence sequester and create a new military budget to give the US military the tools it needs. He will seek the development of a high tech missile defence system to protect against Iran and the Koreans. Cyberwarfare will become a more focused branch of the military, both offensively and defensively. He seeks to ensure a better quality of care for veterans, including firing current VA executives, and ensuring that VA members get 'what they need, whenever they need it'
• Standing up for our Law Enforcement Community - He says there is a dangerous anti police sentiment in the US, and that the adminstration will end it. He seeks to lower violent crime, claiming that homicides in the 50 biggest cities are up 17%, (50% in the capital), and talking about thousands of shootings in chicago (I want to verify these stats, since to my knowledge the crime rate had dropped). He will support the 2nd ammendment at every level of the judicary system. He seeks to make life easier for the people, but not the criminal. He is commited to building a border wall, and having stronger borders to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and the dangers associated with it.
• Trade Deals Working for all Americans - He seeks to reverse the loss of manufactoring and blue-collar work. He will seek to remove the US from TPP, renogtiate NAFTA, and make sure any future deals give American workers the benefits they deserve. Additionally, if the NAFTA negotiations fail, he will withdraw the US from it. He will crack down on nations that violate the trade deals, and he will appoint the best possible negotiators to negotiation on behalf of the American people instead of the 'washington establishment'.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ for the full versions of these, though I feel like I covered the important bits of each.

 

Additionally, we have the first couple of executive orders through already, which will give us a feel as to how Donald Trump will be as a law maker. Whilst I've yet to find the exact wording as of yet, it appears to be a fairly vague mandate to federal institutions to minimize the economic impact of Obamacare, which some speculation is vague enough to allow the effective dismantaling to the law before Congress can repeal either it or the executive order. Additionally, it allows Trump in future to claim that he dealt with Obamacare immediately upon coming into office.

 

He additionally signed a waver to allow General Mattis to become defense secratary before the usual required seven year waiting period expired.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-executive-order-obamacare.html?_r=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38700445

 

Links for the above. I must say, I hoped he'd be a little less vauge as a lawmaker than when he was simply making rhetoric. I hope that when the exact wording come out, it will have more clarity in it.

[cr47t]

I would contest that teachers should ever have to be in the position to do more with less,given education is an investiment and thus should be of the highest quality possible. If I find the time, I will also try and collate stats about performance relative to funding levels in the US education system; I.E. If the places that have 'done more with less' tend to be from higher funded areas anyway. If only because it's my suspicsion that these teachers that 'do more with less' are teachers in suburbna and affluent areas, and thus have an easier time of teaching anyway.

 

In other news:

 

Donald Trump was sworn in yesterday, admists violent protest on the streets of Washington (Which included amonst other things 200~ arrests, 6 injuries to law enforcement and a limo being burned to the ground).

 

We also have the updated Whitehouse.gov website, which gives our first real inclinging of the realities of what the Trump Adminstration intends to do:

• The America First Energy Plan; A plan to tap into the estimated 50 trillion of shale gases, oil and natural gas reserves within the US. Additionally he intends to commit towards 'clean coal technology', and to revivie the US coal industry. He states that he seeks energy indepedance from OPEC, but will retain tight freindships with those in the Gulf. Finally he says that his government will be committed to preserving America's clean waters and clean air. This is inspite saying in the opening paragraph that the Waters of the US act, and the Climate Action Plan are harmful and uneeded, and that there removal will allow up to 30 Billion in wage increases. Money made from these measures will be used to repair and revitalise American infrastructure.
• America First Foriegn Policy - Peace through Strength. He seeks to reverse the decrease in American Military strength since the 90's, such that US military dominance must be unquestioned. The destruction of ISIS and other Islamic radical groups will be the highest priority, he will seek to increase intellegence sharing, cut funding and dismantle propoganda and recruiting. Diplomacy will be America focused, (1) and he will be willing to make friends of enemies.
• Bringing Back Jobs and Growth - He intendeds to create 25 million new jobs, and bring economic growth up to 4%.First of all is his tax plan; He intends to simplify the tax code, lower rates for every tax bracket, lower the corporate tax rate as well. He claims 2 trillion dollars are lost to needless regulation, (2)and has ordered a moratorium upon new ones. He asks all head of departments to seek and remove job killing regulations. He plans also to renegotiate existing trade deals, and be harsher on future ones in order to ensure the best possible deal for the US, and one that will punish those who seek to take advantage of US workers.
• Making our Military Strong Again - (3)He will end the defence sequester and create a new military budget to give the US military the tools it needs. He will seek the development of a high tech missile defence system to protect against Iran and the Koreans. Cyberwarfare will become a more focused branch of the military, both offensively and defensively. He seeks to ensure a better quality of care for veterans, including firing current VA executives, and ensuring that VA members get 'what they need, whenever they need it'
• Standing up for our Law Enforcement Community - He says there is a dangerous anti police sentiment in the US, and that the adminstration will end it. He seeks to lower violent crime, claiming that homicides in the 50 biggest cities are up 17%, (50% in the capital), and talking about thousands of shootings in chicago (I want to verify these stats, since to my knowledge the crime rate had dropped). He will support the 2nd ammendment at every level of the judicary system. (4)He seeks to make life easier for the people, but not the criminal. He is commited to building a border wall, and having stronger borders to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and the dangers associated with it.
• Trade Deals Working for all Americans - He seeks to reverse the loss of manufactoring and blue-collar work. He will seek to remove the US from TPP, renogtiate NAFTA, and make sure any future deals give American workers the benefits they deserve. Additionally, if the NAFTA negotiations fail, he will withdraw the US from it. He will crack down on nations that violate the trade deals, and he will appoint the best possible negotiators to negotiation on behalf of the American people instead of the 'washington establishment'.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ for the full versions of these, though I feel like I covered the important bits of each.

 

Additionally, we have the first couple of executive orders through already, which will give us a feel as to how Donald Trump will be as a law maker. Whilst I've yet to find the exact wording as of yet, it appears to be a fairly vague mandate to federal institutions to minimize the economic impact of Obamacare, which some speculation is vague enough to allow the effective dismantaling to the law before Congress can repeal either it or the executive order. (5) Additionally, it allows Trump in future to claim that he dealt with Obamacare immediately upon coming into office.

 

(6) He additionally signed a waver to allow General Mattis to become defense secratary before the usual required seven year waiting period expired.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-executive-order-obamacare.html?_r=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38700445

 

Links for the above. I must say, I hoped he'd be a little less vauge as a lawmaker than when he was simply making rhetoric. (7)I hope that when the exact wording come out, it will have more clarity in it.

 

1. What does this mean?

2. Isn't that the "two removed for every one added" principle? Am I the only one who feels like that principle is a bit excessive? Because with it, eventually you get not the right regulations nor the right amount of regulations, you get no regulations. And history has proved time and time again that when there are no regulations on big corporations, workers are cheated, customers are ripped off, and people die. often by the hundreds or thousands.

3. Can someone clarify what the defense sequester is?

4. What does this mean? Is he going to help incorporate more rehabilitation into the criminal justice system, or keep the all-punishment method that has proven to not work (at least, not in all cases)?

5. I gotta go off a tangent here; I feel that a lot of people want to repeal Obamacare but not the Affordable Care Act, and don't know that Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. I think that President Trump and the GOP should take into consideration the negative effects about repealing the law (ex. 20M+ ppl losing insurance) when people hate it under one name and like it under another while not knowing they are one of the same. If the GOP repeals ACA/Obamacare without considering that, they have to own their actions.

6. Am I the only one concerned? This is (by my counting) the 2nd time Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law (the first being appointing Jared Kushner to his Cabinet).

7. Let's hope.

 

Also I forgot to number this, but I am also concerned about exiting climate change programs to improve American air and water -- it's (kind of) defeating the purpose.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

1. What does this mean?

2. Isn't that the "two removed for every one added" principle? Am I the only one who feels like that principle is a bit excessive? Because with it, eventually you get not the right regulations nor the right amount of regulations, you get no regulations. And history has proved time and time again that when there are no regulations on big corporations, workers are cheated, customers are ripped off, and people die. often by the hundreds or thousands.

3. Can someone clarify what the defense sequester is?

4. What does this mean? Is he going to help incorporate more rehabilitation into the criminal justice system, or keep the all-punishment method that has proven to not work (at least, not in all cases)?

5. I gotta go off a tangent here; I feel that a lot of people want to repeal Obamacare but not the Affordable Care Act, and don't know that Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. I think that President Trump and the GOP should take into consideration the negative effects about repealing the law (ex. 20M+ ppl losing insurance) when people hate it under one name and like it under another while not knowing they are one of the same. If the GOP repeals ACA/Obamacare without considering that, they have to own their actions.

6. Am I the only one concerned? This is (by my counting) the 2nd time Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law (the first being appointing Jared Kushner to his Cabinet).

7. Let's hope.

 

Also I forgot to number this, but I am also concerned about exiting climate change programs to improve American air and water -- it's (kind of) defeating the purpose.

1) Russia and Syria most likely

2) It means the admins will think twice before throwing ineffective regulations upon nation #makethemaccountable

3) Defense spending cap basically

4) Honestly not sure, as you know this is one of the few areas I disagree with the president on

5) And you would be wrong

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

ACA premiums are sky-rocketing because quite often it's cheaper to pay the penalty of not getting in, than it is to play for a plan that has so many things that you don't need. ACA need to stratify to give more options

6)Well based on that fact that Mattis passed 98-1, with 1 nay, and Trump's AG pick abstaining, I'd say you're in a minority (Sanders voted Yea)

7) Wiggleroom is healthy, President Obama promised the world in explicit terms, didn't serve him well 

 

---

 

This is so British

 

---

 

 

They're getting to work fast lol

 

---

 

 

Full Inaugural Address

 

---

 

NEW: Trump can appoint his son-in-law Jared Kushner to a White House post. US Justice Department says anti-nepotism rules do NOT apply

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2017/01/20/2017-01-20-anti-nepo-stat-who_0.pdf

 

Thanks JFK

[epicmemesbro]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjjVMAdWm4&feature=youtu.be&t=5610

 

Sean Spicer took part in a sad excuse of a press conference. From accusing the media over a trivial matter, to making a few rather alarming suggestions, to abruptly leaving without answering any of the reporters' questions, the new press secretary has gotten off to a rather rough start.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Sean Spicer took part in a sad excuse of a press conference. From accusing the media over a trivial matter, to making a few rather alarming suggestions, to abruptly leaving without answering any of the reporters' questions, the new press secretary has gotten off to a rather rough start.

Nah, he put them on notice for spouting bullshit. If it's a trivial matter, why have the been running with it for the last day or so. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

 

This is one of the worse scotus decisions to happen to the united states. It's hopefully on it's way out under this administration 

[Aerion Brightflame]

So can someone eligthen me as to how the Democrats blocked the appointment of Mike Pompeo, when given that the democrats removed the need for a 60 vote threshold a few years ago for everything but Supreme Court nominations, thus meaning all that's needed is a simple minority? Because by my reckoning, the Senate, like every branch of the house was Republican controlled right now. Even if it's only 46-2-52 (D/I/R), the Republicans should surely be able to appoint Pompeo without the Democrats objections mattering right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So can someone eligthen me as to how the Democrats blocked the appointment of Mike Pompeo, when given that the democrats removed the need for a 60 vote threshold a few years ago for everything but Supreme Court nominations, thus meaning all that's needed is a simple minority? Because by my reckoning, the Senate, like every branch of the house was Republican controlled right now. Even if it's only 46-2-52 (D/I/R), the Republicans should surely be able to appoint Pompeo without the Democrats objections mattering right?

In part becuase the republicans were craven. So democrats can debate on the floor and ask for time, and thus they delayed it to Monday by stating they needed time to vet some of Pompeo's views. They cannot filibuster a floor vote, but that would require the leader to move the vote to floor over democrat objection.

 

There's 5 votes Monday (CIA, State, UN, HUD, Transportation) and the leader is pissed now. So the Dems blew the good will they had

 

---

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump intends to advance Keystone and Dakota pipelines with executive orders according to  @ https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/823895972271050752

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-24/trump-said-to-plan-orders-approving-keystone-dakota-pipelines