[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.

JC wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

At 1:07 AM last night Trump also signed a new EO that quietly rescinded his "drain the swamp" ethics EO, which banned Trump administration officials from becoming lobbyists for five years.

To be fair, Clinton and Obama did the same at the end of their terms.

Clinton did. Obama did not.

Obama's EO 13490 was revoked by Trump's drain the swamp EO:

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order supersedes Executive Order 13490 of January 21, 2009 (Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel), and therefore Executive Order 13490 is hereby revoked. No other prior Executive Orders are repealed by this order. To the extent that this order is inconsistent with any provision of any prior Executive Order, this order shall control.
JC wrote:

I wasn't aware of this turd...

From 538 wrote:

In one of its final acts before leaving office, the Trump administration released a 45-page document called “The 1776 Report.” The report, written by conservative scholars and administration figures, was intended to serve as a rejoinder to The 1619 Project, published in 2019 by The New York Times Magazine, which argued that much of America’s history is best understood by thinking of the nation’s founding as in 1619, when enslaved people from Africa were first brought to the United States. The White House report was a forceful denunciation of so-called identity politics, criticism of America’s founders for tolerating slavery and other ideas often espoused by more liberal-leaning Americans.

Many scholars refuted the 1776 report’s findings. But the report’s content and its release right before Trump left office was an apt conclusion for an administration that has in many ways been defined by its racial (and at times racist) politics.

Link to 1776 Report
From the closing "argument" in the "report."

The answer to this rising concern must begin by frankly and humbly admitting that the common ground of equal natural rights on which our common morality is based is no longer visible to many Americans. We mustrefocus on the proposition that united this nation from the beginning: the proposition of the Declaration of Independence that there are "self-evident truths" which unite all Americans under a common creed.

But it is almost impossible to hold to this creed—which describes what and who we are—without reference to the Creator as the ultimate source of human equality and natural rights. This is the deepest reason why thefounders saw faith as the key to good character as well as good citizenship, and why we must remain “one Nationunder God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

”The proposition of political equality is powerfully supported by biblical faith, which confirms that all humanbeings are equal in dignity and created in God’s image. Every form of religious faith is entitled to religious liberty, so long as all comprehend and sincerely assent to the fundamental principle that under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” all human beings are equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the first American president wrote in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

Biden's going to revoke the commission by EO this afternoon and the report has already disappeared from the White House website.

It was truly a turd and there were several Twitter threads on Monday asking how a document that was supposed be about the "real" American history when the 1776 commission had no actual historians on it.

OG_slinger wrote:

Biden's going to revoke the commission by EO this afternoon

That actually makes me sad. I’d like to see what kind of consensus report by a bunch of historians, political scientists, and constitutional lawyers would actually say.

Keithustus wrote:

That actually makes me sad. I’d like to see what kind of consensus report by a bunch of historians, political scientists, and constitutional lawyers would actually say.

You can still find copies of it, but it's certainly not a consensus report by a bunch of historians, political scientists, and constitutional lawyers.

AFAIK, he could set up a commission with actual experts on it, to tell us what's actually true. It sounds like that report is way worse than useless.

OG_slinger wrote:

You can still find copies of it

Junk. I want a real report by actual experts, like I said. Outside of a panel like this, that kind of collaboration rarely happens.

Keithustus wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

You can still find copies of it

Junk. I want a real report by actual experts, like I said. Outside of a panel like this, that kind of collaboration rarely happens.

That would be something like the NYT's 1619 project, which was the reason Trump formed his 1776 commission.

Keithustus wrote:

That actually makes me sad. I’d like to see what kind of consensus report by a bunch of historians, political scientists, and constitutional lawyers would actually say.

There are innumerable books written by people like that, on topics like that, available at your local bookstore right now.

Nevin73 wrote:

Is it written in crayon

Nope, Sharpie.

Greta Thunberg wishes 'old man' Trump a 'wonderful future'

The teenager was reversing a barb that Trump -- who frequently disputes the science behind climate change -- had aimed at her in 2019 when he wrote on Twitter that "she seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future."

The tweet was a sarcastic response to a fiery speech given by Thunberg at the United Nations where she told world leaders: "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. How dare you?"

In response, Thunberg later modified her Twitter biography, referring to herself as "a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future."

SEASONS OF TRUMP - A Randy Rainbow Song Parody

This thread has been a hoot and all, but I was wondering if we might put a realistic time line on when to retire it? Shirley it should remain relevant throughout the impeachment trial.

Maybe just change the title and allow the thread to evolve into its next stage of life?

RawkGWJ wrote:

This thread has been a hoot and all, but I was wondering if we might put a realistic time line on when to retire it? Shirley it should remain relevant throughout the impeachment trial.

Maybe just change the title and allow the thread to evolve into its next stage of life?

Yup, on the docket for tonight, some of us still have desk jobs they should be attending to, and no one is acting foolish in here so transition of threads can happen during regular side-hustle hours.

RawkGWJ wrote:

This thread has been a hoot and all, but I was wondering if we might put a realistic time line on when to retire it? Shirley it should remain relevant throughout the impeachment trial.

I think the end of the second impeachment makes sense, but don't call me Shirley.

RawkGWJ wrote:

This thread has been a hoot and all, but I was wondering if we might put a realistic time line on when to retire it? Shirley it should remain relevant throughout the impeachment trial.

Maybe just change the title and allow the thread to evolve into its next stage of life?

IMAGE(https://www.memesmonkey.com/images/memesmonkey/s_a0/a08bd282219b25c0c6ccaccfef47cc7d.jpeg)

Starts at 0:55

OG_slinger wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

I want a real report by actual experts, like I said. Outside of a panel like this, that kind of collaboration rarely happens.

That would be something like the NYT's 1619 project, which was the reason Trump formed his 1776 commission.

Something like, but something quite unlike. As a constitutionalist, 1619 is less interesting to me than 1787 or even 1776, and certainly the objectives of that project are quite different. It’s deliberately persuasive, not that that’s inherently bad, but not what I prefer.

Jonman wrote:

There are innumerable books written by people like that, on topics like that, available at your local bookstore right now.

That’s the problem. They’re individual for-profit volumes by one or maybe a few authors, and there’s too many of them. Government-written histories, when staffed correctly obviously, don’t get to casually take sides, so are normally remarkably factual. Example: U.S. Army Center of Military History publications. Rand Corporation reports and Congressional Research Service publications are also great models of historical objectivity.

We need to close it to make way for the inevitable impeachment thread.

Amoebic Wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:
This thread has been a hoot and all, but I was wondering if we might put a realistic time line on when to retire it? Shirley it should remain relevant throughout the impeachment trial.

Maybe just change the title and allow the thread to evolve into its next stage of life?

Yup, on the docket for tonight, some of us still have desk jobs they should be attending to, and no one is acting foolish in here so the transition of threads can happen during regular side-hustle hours.

OKAY ALREADY J F CHRIST

I was planning to set up the transition thread tonight if folks like I've been saying and have scheduled into my calendar for today, if folks can keep their pants on and be patient I would appreciate it.

Several pm's and forum posts are insisting that my timing and planning is wrong in this regard, so here you go, I've locked the thread? If yall can wait 2.5 hours (i.e. when I am off work and was planning to update all of this anyway) before creating a bunch of new threads I would appreciate it, thank you.