[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

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

and here i thought "White nationalist" was something you put it the header line of your CV when you apply for executive administration jobs

In other news, a nice piece out of WaPo on our good friends, the UAE, and all the wonderful things they have been up to.

Who would have known that Trump would run from a real fight? It was so out of character.

Reaper81 wrote:

In other news, a nice piece out of WaPo on our good friends, the UAE, and all the wonderful things they have been up to.

Who would have known that Trump would run from a real fight? It was so out of character.

Bwahahaha!! Best line (bold for emphasis):

When Trump threatened in June to retaliate against Iran for shooting down an American drone and then changed his mind, “it was a big moment for the UAE and for the region, too. Everyone assumed Trump is someone who carries through with his word, and when the moment came, he just pulled back.”

Where could they possibly have had THAT impression...?

Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

In other news, a nice piece out of WaPo on our good friends, the UAE, and all the wonderful things they have been up to.

Who would have known that Trump would run from a real fight? It was so out of character.

Bwahahaha!! Best line (bold for emphasis):

When Trump threatened in June to retaliate against Iran for shooting down an American drone and then changed his mind, “it was a big moment for the UAE and for the region, too. Everyone assumed Trump is someone who carries through with his word, and when the moment came, he just pulled back.”

Where could they possibly have had THAT impression...?

I nearly quoted that line for the link.

It also makes me curious if the UAE was involved in the tanker attacks back in May.

From "'Why are we having all these people from sh*thole countries come here?' instead of Norwegians" to federal policy in 18 months.

New Trump administration rules could deny green cards to immigrants on public assistance

AP wrote:

Trump administration rules that could deny green cards to immigrants who use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers or other forms of public assistance are going into effect, potentially making it more difficult for some to get legal status in the United States.

Federal law already requires those seeking green cards and legal status to prove they will not be a burden to the U.S., or what’s called a “public charge,” but the new rules, made public Monday, detail a broader range of programs that could disqualify them.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers will now weigh public assistance along with other factors such as education, household income and health to determine whether to grant legal status.

Much of President Trump’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration has been in the spotlight, but the rule change is one of the most aggressive efforts to restrict legal immigration. It’s part of a push to move the U.S. to a system that focuses on immigrants’ skills instead of emphasizing the reunification of families, as it has done.

The rules will take effect in mid-October. They don’t apply to U.S. citizens, even if the U.S. citizen is related to an immigrant who is subject to them.

...

Immigrants make up a small percentage of those who get public benefits. In fact, many are ineligible for public benefits because of their immigration status.

But advocates worry the rules will scare immigrants into not asking for help. And they are concerned the rules give too broad an authority to decide whether someone is likely to need public assistance at any time, giving immigration officials the ability to deny legal status to more people.

...

Guidelines in use since 1999 referred to a public charge as someone primarily dependent on cash assistance, income maintenance or government support for long-term institutionalization.

Under the new rules, the Department of Homeland Security has redefined a public charge as someone who is “more likely than not” to receive public benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period. If someone has two benefits, that is counted as two months. And the definition has been broadened to include Medicaid, housing assistance and food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Well. Okay then.

45 is f*cking strange.

Reaper81 wrote:

Well. Okay then.

45 is f*cking strange.

He's been sending Graydon Carter, the editor at Vanity Fair, pictures torn from magazines with his hands circled and "See, not so short!" scrawled in gold Sharpie because Carter called him a "short-fingered vulgarian" back in 1988.

DO yoU Like ME AND wAnT To MAYBe havE a TreEtY SOmE DAY? chECK YeS [ ] oF CourSe [ ] . It Will BE the grEAtESt AnD MOSt BIGlY TReEty Evar!!!!1!!

pS No MeXicanS oR peEoPLe FROM meXiCAN coUntRiEs AlloWed

Part the umpteenth- if this was any other President, maybe even any other Republican president, half the things he does in any given day would be headline scandals for weeks. This guy...

OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

Well. Okay then.

45 is f*cking strange.

He's been sending Graydon Carter, the editor at Vanity Fair, pictures torn from magazines with his hands circled and "See, not so short!" scrawled in gold Sharpie because Carter called him a "short-fingered vulgarian" back in 1988.

Jfc.

He's so incredibly weak-willed and insecure.

The U.S. Navy quietly shut down its Task Force Climate Change sometime between March and July. It was created in 2009 to plan and develop "future public, strategic, and policy discussions" regarding climate change.

A Navy spokesperson said the task force was shut down because its processes are "now duplicative as functions have been transitioned to existing business processes; therefore, the original components of the task force are no longer needed."

That's news to the Rear Admiral who ran it from 2012 to 2015 who said he sees "little evidence" that the task force's work has been fully incorporated into the Navy's decision making process. He noted that when the Navy shuts down a task force a culminating report is typically issued, which wasn't the case this time. He credited that to the White House's hostility to any mention of climate change and Navy brass who don't want to jeopardize their careers or budgets.

Thank you qaraq. Warren speaks "it" well.

Trump’s Latest Proposal Would Let Businesses Discriminate Based On LGBTQ Status, Race, Religion, And More

Buzzfeed News wrote:

The Trump administration on Wednesday formally proposed a new rule to let businesses with federal contracts cite religious objections as a valid reason to discriminate against their workers on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, LGBT status, and other characteristics — thereby skirting worker protections created by past presidents.

The move marks President Donald Trump’s latest effort to weaken civil rights for minorities and satisfy his conservative Christian base with ambiguous rules that grant agencies wide discretion to let companies off the hook when accused of discrimination.

The 46-page draft rule from the Labor Department would apply to a range of so-called religious organizations — including corporations, schools, and societies — provided that they claim a “religious purpose.”

But the Trump administration makes clear in the draft rule that a corporation needn’t focus entirely on religion to qualify, saying, “The contractor must be organized for a religious purpose, meaning that it was conceived with a self-identified religious purpose. This need not be the contractor’s only purpose.”

“A religious purpose can be shown by articles of incorporation or other founding documents, but that is not the only type of evidence that can be used,” says the rule, which grants companies many opportunities to claim that faith or morals guide their purpose.

What is wrong with these people....

JC wrote:

What is wrong with these people....

A Congress without balls is what’s wrong with these people.

BlackSheep wrote:
JC wrote:

What is wrong with these people....

A Congress without balls is what’s wrong with these people.

I think too many Congresspersons with balls is the problem.

Mixolyde wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:
JC wrote:

What is wrong with these people....

A Congress without balls is what’s wrong with these people.

I think too many Congresspersons with balls is the problem.

They may have testicles, but they sure as hell don't have balls.

JC wrote:

What is wrong with these people....

All these pesky laws are getting in the way of the racism.

The Art of the Deal.

TL;DR - China says "Get f*cked," and we're on a race to the bottom.

Trump approval rating drops following mass shootings in latest Fox News poll

A Fox News poll released on Wednesday indicated that support for President Donald Trump among voters has declined, with an approval rating that dropped to 43% from 46% in July.

More respondents said Trump is “tearing the country apart” than did in previous years; 59% thought he is divisive while 31% said he is “drawing the country together.”

The poll, conducted between August 11 and August 13, includes responses from more than 1,000 people who are currently registered to vote, on both sides of the aisle.

The current rating is heavily influenced by Democratic responses. Only 7% of Democrats in the survey approved of Trump's performance as president compared 88% of Republicans.

The fact that 88% of republicans still approve of this man's performance is astounding and disgusting.

That same poll had some very interesting data on Americans' opinions about guns. That cracking sound you hear in the background just might be the back of the NRA.

Fox News wrote:

On specific measures to reduce gun violence, there’s broad support for requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (90 percent) and passing “red flag” laws that allow police to take guns from people shown to be a danger to themselves or others (81 percent).

Fewer, although still a sizable 67 percent majority, favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. That’s up from 60 percent in 2018. Support includes over half of those living in a gun-owner household (53 percent). Over half of independents (58 percent) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (86 percent) favor a ban. Republicans split 46-46 percent, which is a shift from 2018 when it was 41 favor vs. 56 oppose.

Most Democrats (88 percent) and Republicans (75 percent) favor “red flag” laws, as do voters in gun households (77 percent). Universal background checks are favored by 9 in 10 Democrats (92 percent), Republicans (89 percent), and gun households (93 percent).

Some 71 percent think the government has the ability to reduce gun violence, yet only 18 percent feel it’s extremely or very likely Congress will act this year -- and 42 percent say there’s no chance at all.

Approval of Trump’s response to the shootings stands at 37 percent, and 46 percent think the administration has made the country less safe from mass shootings. For comparison, 32 percent think Trump has made the country less safe from Islamic terrorist attacks.

In addition, more than three times as many believe a mass shooting by an American citizen is a bigger threat than a terrorist attack by Islamic terrorists (60-17 percent). And 32 percent are less likely to attend a large-scale event since the recent shootings -- that’s 12 points higher than the 20 percent who felt that way after 9/11 (October 2001).

Also the Fox News article about their own poll didn't mention that, for the first time ever, the NRA has tipped into unfavorable territory. 47% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the NRA vs. 42% that had a favorable view. And that favorable view is lower than the NRA had in early 2000, a year after Columbine.

Rat Boy wrote:

Trump has asked aides if it's possible to buy Greenland, sources say. To be renamed Trumpland, I bet.

We definitely need another territory we can abuse and ignore; however, with global warming, that might be some prime real estate soon.

Rat Boy wrote:

Trump has asked aides if it's possible to buy Greenland, sources say. To be renamed Trumpland, I bet.

I wonder if it's because China's been sniffing around Greenland the past couple of years, offering to fund infrastructure programs like airports and looking for opportunities for mining gemstones, uranium, and rare earth minerals.

Trump probably thinks he can buy Greenland and use it as leverage in his trade war with China.

OG_slinger wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

Trump has asked aides if it's possible to buy Greenland, sources say. To be renamed Trumpland, I bet.

I wonder if it's because China's been sniffing around Greenland the past couple of years, offering to fund infrastructure programs like airports and looking for opportunities for mining gemstones, uranium, and rare earth minerals.

Trump probably thinks he can buy Greenland and use it as leverage in his trade war with China.

Or he just wants a new golf course.

Trump asking Israel to ban the congresswomen is extra evil considering one of them have family there.

Heh. I just read that US tried to buy Greenland in 1946. For either 100 million dollars, or parts of Alaska...
Maybe we can trade Greenland for all the blue states in US. Or just trade some random uninhabited island, and claim it is Greenland. Surely Trump won't know the difference.

OG_slinger wrote:

Trump probably thinks he can buy Greenland and use it as leverage in his trade war with China.

Sadly, I think that gives Trump too much credit. He’s basically sitting in the Oval Office, bored with the details of running the country, even as dumbed down as his staff makes it. He’s daydreaming of cool things he could do as President on the level of a typical 2nd grader (see also landing on Mars before he leaves office). He was looking at a map and saw this big empty space to the north that surprisingly to him wasn’t part of Canada. He likes buying big things. Probably envisions making it a state someday and naming the capital after himself. Legacy secured. Suck it, Obama.

So Trump gonna Trump, but keeping China from gaining to much traction in Greenland isn't a terrible idea. It's just likely to be handled terribly with the current administration.

Rachel Maddow had the best troll response to buying Greenland.