President Trump- The Implications

[heironymouspasparagus]

I've seen more online outrage about her stilettos than Felix Sater selling the Presidency to Russia. Priorities.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a57254/trump-felix-sater-bbc-interview/

It all goes to the total lack of morals, ethics, and scruples, by the people who still support Trump in spite of all the things he has done in the past.  They are not just willing to overlook, they are condoning and endorsing a wide variety of criminal activities, pedophilia, sexual molestation of women in general, strings of adultery, calling our POWs cowards...the list goes on and on.

As one local 'pundit' keeps putting it - at least it's not Hillary.

[Conan71]

Obviously Trump is a hypocrite.  That's been shown over and over and over again. 

Broader question - what's the point of Trump or Obama going to a hurricane zone? 

Obviously the nation is already focused on the area, this isn't a hidden tragedy.  The President isn't needed to "unite" the country, I don't think there is a large contingent in favor of the hurricane.  There is little need to physically see the damage beyond what satellites, other flyovers, video from helicopters, maps and advisers can tell him. It is a great expense and adds logistical pressure to an area whose police area already working never ending shifts (you work until you can't, then you sleep, then you work until you can't).

I get that its custom and expected.  But wouldn't it actually be better to just ask the emergency officials and then announce they have asked that they be allowed to focus on their tasks?  Then, when the crisis has passed, the news cameras go home, and our tiny attention spans have moved on... have a presidential visit to draw focus on the aftermath and the needs.  This doesn't end when the water goes back out to sea.

And CF nails it.

The reason Trump and Obama did is likely because of how GW Bush was shredded in the media after Katrina.

This was something Bush II did correctly with Katrina by doing a fly-over instead of landing and taking a tour.  But he was excoriated as uncaring and racist by people who don't seem to understand how the Presidential entourage gums up the works when people need emergency assistance. 

I find it is great those with means donate great amounts to recovery efforts, but find it somewhat distasteful that they make a big media campaign about it.  I was always taught the best works of help are those you do anonymously.  One of the top headlines on Yahoo yesterday was how the Kardashian clan is sending $500K to Houston and that was followed by a string of celebrity tweets talking about how much they were donating.  That's all fine and good but using a good deed as a PR ploy is distasteful, JMO.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I find it is great those with means donate great amounts to recovery efforts, but find it somewhat distasteful that they make a big media campaign about it.  I was always taught the best works of help are those you do anonymously.  One of the top headlines on Yahoo yesterday was how the Kardashian clan is sending $500K to Houston and that was followed by a string of celebrity tweets talking about how much they were donating.  That's all fine and good but using a good deed as a PR ploy is distasteful, JMO.

You were taught well, and properly.  It isn't just distasteful, it is prohibited.  By definition.  Matthew 6, 1-4.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=KJV

[Townsend]

Trump Promises '100 Percent' Support For Flood Victims

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/28/546758047/historic-flooding-in-houston-leads-to-surge-in-federal-assistance-efforts

In addition to his proposed budget cuts, Trump announced an executive order on Aug. 16 rolling back an Obama-era rule that new public infrastructure projects be designed with climate change, specifically rising sea levels and flood risk, in mind.

"100 Percent" screwed

[heironymouspasparagus]

Even (especially!) when there is absolutely no reason to lie, Trump can't resist doing it anyway.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4833712/Finland-says-no-fighter-deal-Boeing-Trumps-comments.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

[cannon_fodder]

Interesting legal challenge to Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe.  Apparently, there has not even been a President who pardoned an offender whose transgression was violating a Court Order to stop the government from violating constitutional rights.  The argument is that pardons are clearly broad, but can't be unlimited.

They argue:

The only way to enforce Constitutional protections is through the Courts. If an official refuses to stop violating constitutional rights even after a Court Order, criminal contempt is the recourse.  The last line of defense to stop the government from violating your Constitutional rights is criminal contempt through the Courts.  If the President has the power to over ride the Courts in this manner, the President has the power to enable any government official to violate any constitutional right with impunity.  Ergo, the President is more powerful than the Constitution.

Short version:

In other words, if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.39563321ab31

Very interesting argument.

[Ed W]

It all goes to the total lack of morals, ethics, and scruples, by the people who still support Trump in spite of all the things he has done in the past.  They are not just willing to overlook, they are condoning and endorsing a wide variety of criminal activities, pedophilia, sexual molestation of women in general, strings of adultery, calling our POWs cowards...the list goes on and on.

As one local 'pundit' keeps putting it - at least it's not Hillary.

Trump is firmly on the side of white supremacists. But let's call them by a more exact term - Nazis. And those Republicans who don't speak out against him in hopes of furthering their own agendas are Nazi collaborators.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Interesting legal challenge to Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe.  Apparently, there has not even been a President who pardoned an offender whose transgression was violating a Court Order to stop the government from violating constitutional rights.  The argument is that pardons are clearly broad, but can't be unlimited.

They argue:

The only way to enforce Constitutional protections is through the Courts. If an official refuses to stop violating constitutional rights even after a Court Order, criminal contempt is the recourse.  The last line of defense to stop the government from violating your Constitutional rights is criminal contempt through the Courts.  If the President has the power to over ride the Courts in this manner, the President has the power to enable any government official to violate any constitutional right with impunity.  Ergo, the President is more powerful than the Constitution.

Short version: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.39563321ab31

Very interesting argument.

Fingers crossed !!!   Big time!!   But then, we now have that particular Supreme Court in place....

[swake]

Trump is firmly on the side of white supremacists. But let's call them by a more exact term - Nazis. And those Republicans who don't speak out against him in hopes of furthering their own agendas are Nazi collaborators.

I don't really think he's a Nazi. But, he's willing to pander to them and even protect them if they are useful to him. He does not care about the impact the Nazi types have on other people and he doesn't even care that those Nazis would like to see his own daughter and grandchildren kicked out of the country or worse, just be put to death.

In a lot of ways what he is doing is worse than being a Nazi.

[patric]

I don't really think he's a Nazi. But, he's willing to pander to them and even protect them if they are useful to him. He does not care about the impact the Nazi types have on other people and he doesn't even care that those Nazis would like to see his own daughter and grandchildren kicked out of the country or worse, just be put to death.

In a lot of ways what he is doing is worse than being a Nazi.

Jeff Sessions wants you to believe that the Obama administration made it impossible for police departments to obtain military gear from the federal government—and that Donald Trump, by signing an executive order that reverses that restrictive policy, is triumphantly turning that faucet back on. As Sessions said in a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police on Monday, "The executive order the president will sign today will ensure that you can get the lifesaving gear that you need to do your job."

What Sessions did not say is that, with a few small exceptions, law enforcement agencies could already acquire whatever military equipment they want, so long as they committed to certain best practices, maintained consistent policies about when the equipment could be deployed, and could demonstrate that the officers who would be using the equipment were properly trained. The fact that the Trump administration wants to get rid of these conditions tells you everything you need to know about what's driving the change in policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/28/cops_can_already_get_military_gear_trump_s_new_policy_ensures_they_can_use.html

[swake]

Jeff Sessions wants you to believe that the Obama administration made it impossible for police departments to obtain military gear from the federal government—and that Donald Trump, by signing an executive order that reverses that restrictive policy, is triumphantly turning that faucet back on. As Sessions said in a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police on Monday, "The executive order the president will sign today will ensure that you can get the lifesaving gear that you need to do your job."

What Sessions did not say is that, with a few small exceptions, law enforcement agencies could already acquire whatever military equipment they want, so long as they committed to certain best practices, maintained consistent policies about when the equipment could be deployed, and could demonstrate that the officers who would be using the equipment were properly trained. The fact that the Trump administration wants to get rid of these conditions tells you everything you need to know about what's driving the change in policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/28/cops_can_already_get_military_gear_trump_s_new_policy_ensures_they_can_use.html

Best practices and training are for losers

[cannon_fodder]

Fingers crossed !!!   Big time!!   But then, we now have that particular Supreme Court in place....

Upholding the Constitution as the supreme saw of the land seems to be a very conservative position.  Maintaining checks and balances seems to be a very conservative position.  Now, forbidding someone from gaining absolute power is technically a liberal position, but those dang hippy founding fathers were in favor of it so I think we can overlook it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Upholding the Constitution as the supreme saw of the land seems to be a very conservative position.  Maintaining checks and balances seems to be a very conservative position.  Now, forbidding someone from gaining absolute power is technically a liberal position, but those dang hippy founding fathers were in favor of it so I think we can overlook it.

That's what they want us to believe.  But when they define an artificial, legislatively created construct as 'human'...well, that just shows the real BS behind the curtain.  Corporations are people.  In Supreme Court Circus Land.   It is so difficult to maintain respect for an institution that is so blatantly biased against real people in favor of imitation people.

[Conan71]

imitation people.

We could refer to them as aspartame people or Splenda people.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

We could refer to them as aspartame people or Splenda people.

Saccharin is the preferred name.