[Discussion] The Donald Trump Administration

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

Gremlin wrote:

Interesting speculation re: the Trump/Obama White House meeting. Don't know how long that will last if he's ending up as just a figurehead, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure that he's never thought of himself as a figurehead.

They're not alone in thinking Trump finally realized how in-over-his-head he was.

He's not even planning on living in the white house on the weekends. I think he thinks this is some kind of 9-5 job.

America, your next president wants to spend the weekends relaxing at home and not working for you.

Can't wait to hear conservatives complain about how often he's on vacation, like they did with Obama.

Spoiler:

Yeah, that's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. ;)

Can someone explain something to me?

The Australian Government just announced they'd struck a deal with with Trump's transition team where the US agrees to settle about 1200 or so genuine asylum seekers currently detained offshore on Nauru and Manus Island (ignore for the moment Australia has and continues to illegally detain [imprison] such genuine refugees).

Why would Trump want to accept these asylum seekers (many of which are Islamic faith but also Christians from the middle east)??

Trump’s pledge to separate his business from the presidency lasted two days
Really, I think they're underselling it: there was never really a plan to separate his business, just a "blind trust" that wasn't a blind trust even though the news nodded along every time he said "blind trust". I'm not sure if they've stopped pretending that, or if we'll have an entire administration that will continue to pretend that Trump didn't just buy the executive branch to act as a nightstick for his business.

Bfgp wrote:

Can someone explain something to me?

The Australian Government just announced they'd struck a deal with with Trump's transition team where the US agrees to settle about 1200 or so genuine asylum seekers currently detained offshore on Nauru and Manus Island (ignore for the moment Australia has and continues to illegally detain [imprison] such genuine refugees).

Why would Trump want to accept these asylum seekers (many of which are Islamic faith but also Christians from the middle east)??

From what I could find, the deal wasn't made with Trump's team (source)

The election of Donald Trump could create some difficulties for the United States deal. Bilateral arrangements like these are made by the executive and can be altered or revoked depending on the government of the day.

Faced with several questions about whether Trump could spell trouble for the deal Turnbull said: “We deal with one administration at the time. There is only one president of the United States at a time.”

Offshore detention: Australia's recent immigration history a 'human rights catastrophe'
Read more
“These arrangements have had a long run-up. The agreement was reached some time ago,” he said.

Asked about Trump’s policy to ban Muslim immigration, Turnbull stressed Australia’s history of cooperation with the US on humanitarian goals but did not say whether he thought the deal could survive a Trump presidency.

Bfgp wrote:

Why would Trump want to accept these asylum seekers (many of which are Islamic faith but also Christians from the middle east)??

I'm not seeing any reports that anyone from Trump's team was involved. The article I did see had quotes from the current Secretary of State, John Kerry. I don't think Trump's team has formal authority to negotiate yet, anyway.

Edit: Stengah-hausered.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Can't wait to hear conservatives complain about how often he's on vacation, like they did with Obama.

Spoiler:

Yeah, that's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. ;)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/IeeUpEb.jpg)

Right. So in other words, it's a press release down here which makes it seem like our government is doing something to assuage the public, but is unlikely to be implemented. I will be pleasantly surprised if this agreement is honored.

Bfgp wrote:

Right. So in other words, it's a press release down here which makes it seem like our government is doing something to assuage the public, but is unlikely to be implemented. I will be pleasantly surprised if this agreement is honored.

More like it was actually doing something, but there's a possibility Trump might destroy this too. The US officials can start its vetting process now, but that takes a long time (18 to 24 months), so Trump's administration could possibly stop it partway through. Some steps may have been done already by your government, but I don't know if our government will just accept them or if they'll have to go through them themselves.
IMAGE(https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/wh_blog_refugee_workflow_1125.jpg)

oilypenguin wrote:

He's not even planning on living in the white house on the weekends. I think he thinks this is some kind of 9-5 job.

America, your next president wants to spend the weekends relaxing at home and not working for you.

Micheal Moore pointed out that, for Trump, the White House is stepping down a notch in terms of accommodation. He said Trump is probably thinking, "I've got to stay in this old house!? Great I'm going to be slumming it for four years."

Bannon is chief strategist and consul. So we should start panicking now?

Upon reflection. Yes.

Not surprising but still gut wrenching.

Yep, I'm panicking.

As far as Trump feeling in over his head but also not wanting to be a figurehead... Bannon, Pence and company will probably let him make all the important decisions, but they'll manipulate the information and present available options in a way that he'll still do exactly what they want. "The Decider" 2.0, basically. They'll keep his trust by feeding his ego and pointing out various opponents for him to get irritated at.

Orphu wrote:

This probably needs to be pinned to the original post or something:

https://trumptracker.github.io/

It's like Golf, lower is better.

DSGamer wrote:
Shadout wrote:

Lobbyists are going to have a great time with him. Make him change his opinion every 5 minute.
I wish someone could convince him about not screwing over the small attempts at fighting climate change.

Yep. I have two friends who are lobbyists at the state level and they've told me that there's no way congressmen could write their own legislation. The greener any government official is the more likely the laws are written by lobbyists.

I feel like we need to create some kind of new profession/position/organization/body for actual law creation. A Congressman's full-time job is to solicit money for their party, run for re-election, and pass whatever legislation they're paid to pass while barely understanding it. A lobbyist's job is to write legislation that is too confusing to understand and benefits their company or industry, and then pay/convince congressmen to vote on it. Nowhere in there is someone thinking of the best interests of the people in a constituency. Someone independent should be writing and reviewing laws, because congressman don't have the time or inclination.

Mixolyde wrote:

I feel like we need to create some kind of new profession/position/organization/body for actual law creation. A Congressman's full-time job is to solicit money for their party, run for re-election, and pass whatever legislation they're paid to pass while barely understanding it. A lobbyist's job is to write legislation that is too confusing to understand and benefits their company or industry, and then pay/convince congressmen to vote on it. Nowhere in there is someone thinking of the best interests of the people in a constituency. Someone independent should be writing and reviewing laws, because congressman don't have the time or inclination.

My pet political theory that's been subjected to no scrutiny outside my head is that we could fix 90% of the issues with lobbying, Congress, and legislation if we just funded a larger permanent staff for Congress to take some of the administration, fundraising, and legislation burden off of them. (Average staff size is 14 for the House and 34 for the Senate. They're underpaid, too: staff assistants, the most common job title, make less than $30K.) One of the issues is that lobbyists write model bills for their pet issues and hand them to the legislators who copy them verbatim, because that's a lot faster than drafting the text themselves.

Higgledy wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

He's not even planning on living in the white house on the weekends. I think he thinks this is some kind of 9-5 job.

America, your next president wants to spend the weekends relaxing at home and not working for you.

Micheal Moore pointed out that, for Trump, the White House is stepping down a notch in terms of accommodation. He said Trump is probably thinking, "I've got to stay in this old house!? Great I'm going to be slumming it for four years."

I can't believe not staying in the White House is even considered an option. Security alone would be a nightmare. Don't even get me started on the rallies he wants to have. This guy has no concept of the job. Zero, zilch, nada.

Granted, I'm basing this entirely off The West Wing and House of Cards, but doesn't the Secret Service require a whole mess of security upgrades for the President's residence, especially a de facto primary residence? If he does plan to be flying back and forth to New York regularly, is the cost of a lot of unnecessary trips for Air Force One paid for by the taxpayers, or is that out of his pocket? Doesn't that also mean that there'll be regular Presidential motorcades going through Manhattan? I'm sure that'll do wonders for traffic there. I wonder if they'd even have to take the extra step of blocking off the street around Trump Tower when the President is there.

Above and beyond that, it now puts him well away from his staff during the weekend. I guess he'll be handling any crises that happen via Skype, or maybe he'll just let Pence run the show when he clocks out at 4pm on Friday.

Can they can put a private server in for him.

Oy.

A little background on the neutering of non-political staff in Congress.

Because Mr. Gingrich does know more than most politicians, the main obstacles to his grandiose schemes have always been Congress’s professional staff members, many among the leading authorities anywhere in their areas of expertise.

To remove this obstacle, Mr. Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it. When he became speaker in 1995, Mr. Gingrich moved quickly to slash the budgets and staff of the House committees, which employed thousands of professionals with long and deep institutional memories.

Of course, when party control in Congress changes, many of those employed by the previous majority party expect to lose their jobs. But the Democratic committee staff members that Mr. Gingrich fired in 1995 weren’t replaced by Republicans. In essence, the positions were simply abolished, permanently crippling the committee system and depriving members of Congress of competent and informed advice on issues that they are responsible for overseeing.

Mr. Gingrich sold his committee-neutering as a money-saving measure. How could Congress cut the budgets of federal agencies if it wasn’t willing to cut its own budget, he asked. In the heady days of the first Republican House since 1954, Mr. Gingrich pretty much got whatever he asked for.

In addition to decimating committee budgets, he also abolished two really useful Congressional agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The former brought high-level scientific expertise to bear on legislative issues and the latter gave state and local governments an important voice in Congressional deliberations.

The amount of money involved was trivial even in terms of Congress’s budget. Mr. Gingrich’s real purpose was to centralize power in the speaker’s office, which was staffed with young right-wing zealots who followed his orders without question. Lacking the staff resources to challenge Mr. Gingrich, the committees could offer no resistance and his agenda was simply rubber-stamped.

He's going to check out at night and on the weekends. Pence will likely be president in all but name. We'll have a constitutional crisis where Pence orders something but trump isn't around to stamp it sooner rather than later.

There's a silver lining.

I'd bet that trump (assuming he doesn't get impeached for something so egregious the house can't ignore it) declares victory and doesn't run for a second term. I can see him having something BIG and EXCITING planned MUCH BIGGER THAN THE PRESIDENCY and not run to go off and do that. He didn't want this job. He's not going to DO this job. We may very well have another 18 month long knife fight starting in 2.5 years.

NOT a silver lining: If Trump lives in his tower, that creates a no-fly zone in NYC.

No flying into NYC while president trump is there.

WSJ:

Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/T2LbdUj.jpg)

TheGameguru wrote:

Bannon is chief strategist and consul. So we should start panicking now?

No it may be fine, give them a chance to get their hands on the machinery of state before assuming they will violently repress anyone.

Rat Boy wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/IeeUpEb.jpg)

garion333 wrote:

It's the best, isn't it?

You should be more concerned that Bannon is now his top advisor. A man that thrives off of sowing hatred and outright lies is now the top advisor to the president...