[Discussion] The Donald Trump Administration

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits.

OG_slinger wrote:
CBS News wrote:

The Trump team has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances. Logistically, the children would need to be designated by the current White House as national security advisers to their father to receive top secret clearances. However, once Mr. Trump becomes president, he would be able to put in the request himself.

His children would need to fill out the security questionnaire (SF-86) and go through the requisite background checks.

While nepotism rules prevent the president-elect from hiring his kids to work in the White House, they do not need to be government officials to receive top secret security clearances.

As a reminder, two of Trump's kids--Ivanka and Eric--couldn't be assed to register to vote and now daddy wants them to have access to classified information.

Remember how lots of things leaked out of the Bush2 admin and was retro-actively declassified by Cheney?
Get ready for the creek to turn into a river.

Also I like how one of them is not on the list (Don Jr). Related question, can his kids be hit with insider trading? I know Congress and I assume the Pres do not count, but I am unsure about families.

So these kids are going to be running the "blind trust", but also need top secret security clearance because...?

OG_slinger wrote:
CBS News wrote:

The Trump team has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances. Logistically, the children would need to be designated by the current White House as national security advisers to their father to receive top secret clearances. However, once Mr. Trump becomes president, he would be able to put in the request himself.

His children would need to fill out the security questionnaire (SF-86) and go through the requisite background checks.

While nepotism rules prevent the president-elect from hiring his kids to work in the White House, they do not need to be government officials to receive top secret security clearances.

As a reminder, two of Trump's kids--Ivanka and Eric--couldn't be assed to register to vote and now daddy wants them to have access to classified information.

I can think of only one reason his kids need security clearance. Trump can't read. He needs them to read the reports so he can stay informed. It's the only thing that makes sense.

IMAGE(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15107331_1338992662800301_6307463798092154747_n.jpg?oh=c1e0a86ec698fe1bfaa6fcb9f15bc88d&oe=58CC3919)

Chaz wrote:

So these kids are going to be running the "blind trust", but also need top secret security clearance because...?

Because they're on his transition team.

Donald Trump never met a conflict of interest he didn't want to exploit!

Now there are rumors that Trump wants Giuliani for secretary of state.... I just cannot process any of this,

JC wrote:

Now there are rumors that Trump wants Giuliani for secretary of state.... I just cannot process any of this,

Neither can half his team, apparently, although "Knife Fight Over Cabinet Building" sounds like it'd be a smashing HGTV show.

not sure where this goes thread-wise, horrifying regardless;
FBI: Hate crimes spike, most sharply against Muslims

not a big shock considering but very sad

DSGamer wrote:

I just read the Wikipedia entry and even that is really depressing. The book that keeps going through my head is Handmaid's Tale. I don't know what to do with this depression I'm feeling. I keep hoping these worst case scenarios will leave my head.

I'm increasingly thinking of Soft Apocalypse as a chronicling of what happens as society falls apart. There are some disturbing sections and I'm not a fan of how it ends but while we're mentioning books relevant to the current sociopolitical climate....

Saw this today:

IMAGE(http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll120/MrDeVil_909/fire%20dog_zpslmobvwva.jpg)

And was inspired to update this:

IMAGE(http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll120/MrDeVil_909/sheep%20comic_zpstlvggmxi.jpg)

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Seriously. He obviously can't believe all of the contradictory things he's said.

It leaves you free to speculate wildly on what he'll actually do, but we really have no evidence yet.

Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

To me, this is the most frightening prospect. We're talking about someone who believes the New York Times is an illegitimate news source and Infowars is a legit one. There's like a billion timelines of what happens during a Trump presidency, and it's doubtful any of them are things he gave a lot of thought and rational thinking towards.

gore wrote:
Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Seriously. He obviously can't believe all of the contradictory things he's said.

It leaves you free to speculate wildly on what he'll actually do, but we really have no evidence yet.

The appointment of Bannon seems like pretty strong evidence.

Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Trump is also overwhelmed right now, and looking for anyone to throw him a lifeline. If we don't give him a chance, we give his ear entirely over to the basket of deplorables. If we can make it so that he spends more time listening to people like Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and less time listening to Pepe the Frog or whomever, we have a chance to save some lives.

Yeah, we dress it up in the rhetoric of 'the spirit of the Constitution and the ideals of Democracy' but I think every liberal saying we should give him a chance is lying, and what they're really doing is trying to keep him from being entirely captured by the people around him, because they think this is the best chance to save some lives.

But in order for that to happen, he'd have to be listening to someone other than the people he's surrounded himself with. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I'd love him to moderate, but based on who he's putting into advisory positions, I don't see that happening. He could look to the number of protests going and try to find out what they're on about, but based on his past statements, it seems more likely that he'll just see them as whiny crybabies mad that they lost, and ignore them. I'm honestly not sure how people outside of the echo chamber he's built will be able to get him to listen.

Chaz wrote:

But in order for that to happen, he'd have to be listening to someone other than the people he's surrounded himself with. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I'd love him to moderate, but based on who he's putting into advisory positions, I don't see that happening. He could look to the number of protests going and try to find out what they're on about, but based on his past statements, it seems more likely that he'll just see them as whiny crybabies mad that they lost, and ignore them. I'm honestly not sure how people outside of the echo chamber he's built will be able to get him to listen.

Not just his past statements, he's already complained about them being 'unfair' on twitter. In his 60 Minutes interview he said that there was a media double standard and that if "my people were out there ..." the media would be demonizing them. His prepared remarks about being a president for everyone are given the lie by his unprepared remarks stating that the protestors are not 'his people'.

Chaz wrote:

But in order for that to happen, he'd have to be listening to someone other than the people he's surrounded himself with. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I'd love him to moderate,

So would I, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about getting just enough of his ear to keep him as a semi-rational conservative. Every bit you can move him away from the alt-right is more lives saved. There will be blood, but maybe if he's not entirely captured by the deplorables, it won't be a complete bloodbath.

I'm honestly curious about where the "line" is anymore with Trump supporters. What qualifies as "racist" now, since all I'm hearing is how things aren't really racist and maybe people should calm down. When are people going to be allowed to say "okay this isn't good" about his administration, rather than being told "wait and see" despite very obvious, very clear indications of problems that can be discussed?

Why are we being asked to give this man the benefit of the doubt by people who decided Clinton was guilty of things not even a Federal investigator went for? It's infuriating.

Yeah, but how? Since he can't get his adulation and praise from huge rallies now*, it seems likely that he'll retreat even further into a bubble of people who will tell him how great he is. I doubt he's going to want to give ear to dissenting opinions.

*Who knows? Maybe he'll continue holding rallies?

absurddoctor wrote:
gore wrote:
Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Seriously. He obviously can't believe all of the contradictory things he's said.

It leaves you free to speculate wildly on what he'll actually do, but we really have no evidence yet.

The appointment of Bannon seems like pretty strong evidence.

Anecdotal evidence, of course.

I'll also note that I don't have any idea what Bannon's long game is yet. He obviously captured the imagination of white nationalists and Internet trolls in his role as media mogul, but now that he has them, what does he want to do with them as a bureaucrat? Are they a means to an end? What is the end?

I think it's all quite murky. I could see a version of Trump that picks and chooses the best elements from the alt-right (if you're asking what those might possibly be, I'd point to a general disdain of partisan politics and a strong desire to limit the influence of career politicians and lobbyists) and the best elements from the normal GOP which results in some kind of positive outcome. I can also see him picking and choosing the worst elements of each and doing something horrific.

Chaz wrote:

Yeah, but how? Since he can't get his adulation and praise from huge rallies now*, it seems likely that he'll retreat even further into a bubble of people who will tell him how great he is. I doubt he's going to want to give ear to dissenting opinions.

*Who knows? Maybe he'll continue holding rallies?

Because he just walked into a job where even career politicians crap their pants when they hear what the job entails.

Trump has already said he wants to continue holding rallies. Make no mistake, the man's ego is fully in control of everything he does.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Chaz wrote:

But in order for that to happen, he'd have to be listening to someone other than the people he's surrounded himself with. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I'd love him to moderate,

So would I, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about getting just enough of his ear to keep him as a semi-rational conservative. Every bit you can move him away from the alt-right is more lives saved. There will be blood, but maybe if he's not entirely captured by the deplorables, it won't be a complete bloodbath.

To *keep* him as a semi-rational conservative? He's been off the deep end for a long time now and he isn't ever coming back. What you're suggesting seems to be the same tactic that Obama and the centrist Democrats have been using for years now, to try to stay calm and reason with the Republicans, etc. and it's been proven over and over that it doesn't work.

The time to prevent the bloodbaths was *before* everyone voted in this monster. Now the bloodbath may be the only thing that finally turns the tide.

(I'm not suggesting that I personally *want* to see the bloodbaths. I don't. But let's stop with the "if we can just get him to see reason" suggestions that have been failing for years now. He won't.)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Yeah, but how? Since he can't get his adulation and praise from huge rallies now*, it seems likely that he'll retreat even further into a bubble of people who will tell him how great he is. I doubt he's going to want to give ear to dissenting opinions.

*Who knows? Maybe he'll continue holding rallies?

Because he just walked into a job where even career politicians crap their pants when they hear what the job entails.

They crap their pants because they want to do a good job in that role. I'm not convinced that Trump has that same desire. I think he wants to look like he's doing well, but ultimately, I think he's perfectly happy to let other people do the job and take credit for the parts that come out okay. As long as he continues to have people cheering for him, I think he's happy.

JC wrote:

Trump has already said he wants to continue holding rallies. Make no mistake, the man's ego is fully in control of everything he does.

What? No. No no no. He isn't all about eg-

President-elect DJ Trump wrote:

If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

... oh. Ok, maybe he is.

bekkilyn wrote:

To *keep* him as a semi-rational conservative? He's been off the deep end for a long time now and he isn't ever coming back. What you're suggesting seems to be the same tactic that Obama and the centrist Democrats have been using for years now, to try to stay calm and reason with the Republicans, etc. and it's been proven over and over that it doesn't work.

Granting that for the sake of argument, every little step we move him back from the deep end is more lives saved. I'm not the type to argue semantics so if you think there's a better label than the one I used, I'm fine with it.

And you can't compare this to Obama's folly--those Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. Trump just landed in a job he now realizes he is in no way prepared for. He's looking for a lifeline. Those Republicans were not.

The time to prevent the bloodbaths was *before* everyone voted in this monster. Now the bloodbath may be the only thing that finally turns the tide.

(I'm not suggesting that I personally *want* to see the bloodbaths. I don't. But let's stop with the "if we can just get him to see reason" suggestions that have been failing for years now. He won't.)

That's the only other option here, right? Provoke him into killing enough people that America turns on him? Not trying to turn him further from the dark side is like casting a third-party vote at this point. If you think the crisis from things getting worse is worth it or think it will even help, then that's your call.

Look, there was a point where I even thought Trump winning was a *good* thing rather than get crushed in the 2020 redistricting elections. Even though I am old and atypical and my personal is not very political, and the next four years are probably more important to me than any four years after that. I listened, though, to the people with personal lives that are more political about how Trump wasn't worth it. So I'm not ready to jump right back in to the idea that we can't be progressives that get results and should risk lives to win the next election.

Even if all that supposed 'wisdom' I listened to about how progressives need to be post-liberal looks like it was all just us getting high on our own supply.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

And you can't compare this to Obama's folly--those Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. Trump just landed in a job he now realizes he is in no way prepared for. He's looking for a lifeline. Those Republicans were not.

I think this right here is a big part of where we disagree. I don't believe Trump is looking for a lifeline. I believe Trump knows exactly what he's doing and is fully prepared to do the job he prepared to do. Which of course may not be the job that *we* think he should be doing, which probably *won't* be the job we think he should be doing, but he's more than prepared. Frighteningly more than prepared, and he's in full and utter control of it. You are assuming a rationality that just doesn't exist.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

And you can't compare this to Obama's folly--those Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. Trump just landed in a job he now realizes he is in no way prepared for. He's looking for a lifeline. Those Republicans were not.

I think this right here is a big part of where we disagree. I don't believe Trump is looking for a lifeline. I believe Trump knows exactly what he's doing and is fully prepared to do the job he prepared to do. Which of course may not be the job that *we* think he should be doing, which probably *won't* be the job we think he should be doing, but he's more than prepared. Frighteningly more than prepared, and he's in full and utter control of it. You are assuming a rationality that just doesn't exist.

Yup. Given one of the first things he announced in his 100 day plan was the removal of Dodd-Frank, I suspect Trump has a pretty good plan for what he's doing and how he's setting himself up already for post-Presidency life.

absurddoctor wrote:
gore wrote:
Malor wrote:

With another candidate, they'd have a point. With Trump? Trump almost never tells the truth. Who knows what he's going to do on January 20?

Seriously. He obviously can't believe all of the contradictory things he's said.

It leaves you free to speculate wildly on what he'll actually do, but we really have no evidence yet.

The appointment of Bannon seems like pretty strong evidence.

This about a million times over. He appointed a dude whose paper routinely ran all the vilest bullsh*t possible about Obama, not to mention countless other people. This is a dude who wrote that the problem with diversity in the tech industry is because women suck at interviews. Like... this alone pretty much screams we're headed back to the 50s at the fastest rate possible, which, with Congress and some Supreme Court nominees could be anywhere from nowhere fast to snail's pace to Indy car. :\

Chaz wrote:

They crap their pants because they want to do a good job in that role. I'm not convinced that Trump has that same desire. I think he wants to look like he's doing well, but ultimately, I think he's perfectly happy to let other people do the job and take credit for the parts that come out okay. As long as he continues to have people cheering for him, I think he's happy.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

And you can't compare this to Obama's folly--those Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. Trump just landed in a job he now realizes he is in no way prepared for. He's looking for a lifeline. Those Republicans were not.

I think this right here is a big part of where we disagree. I don't believe Trump is looking for a lifeline. I believe Trump knows exactly what he's doing and is fully prepared to do the job he prepared to do. Which of course may not be the job that *we* think he should be doing, which probably *won't* be the job we think he should be doing, but he's more than prepared. Frighteningly more than prepared, and he's in full and utter control of it. You are assuming a rationality that just doesn't exist.

I would agree that this is the point where we disagree.

We are also still facing a choice we cannot avoid here. We try and get his ear, or we don't. We weigh the risks of legitimizing him by being seen trying to work with him against the risks that there is an opportunity there to prevent his complete capture by the deplorables. We weigh the risks of helping him win in four years or his party win in two years against the number of lives we can save in those years. We obviously come out differently on those calculations.