Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right after Friday's failure of a repeal-and-replace bill conservatives disparaged as ObamaCare Lite, however, the spectre of that other Donald was glimpsed. The president now believes he can “make a deal with the Democrats and have one unified deal.” He hastened to add that “they will come to us; we won’t have to come to them” because it will happen “after ObamaCare explodes” over the coming months. It certainly sounds like Trump will have Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi eating out of his hand.
2. Continued Obama's foreign policy and illegal wars
Trump often underlines his many differences with Obama but in the realm of national security there are, in fact, some important continuities between the two administrations.
The Trump administration has continued the Obama doctrine of avoiding big, conventional wars in the Middle East. Instead, the Trump team has kept in place much of the counter-terrorism architecture that Obama developed, including his overall approach to the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and his reliance on Special Operations Forces and drones rather than on large-scale conventional forces to achieve American military goals.
In Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, Trump continues the drone campaigns that were a signature of Obama's administration.
Despite Trump's sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric about NATO, Trump's team has remained strong supporters of the alliance, which continues to play an important role in Afghanistan.
The Trump team has also called for NATO members to spend more on defense — the goal is 2% of each country's GDP -- which is exactly what the Obama administration also called for, albeit somewhat more diplomatically.
Trump himself may make nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but his national security team takes many of the same positions on Russia that Obama did.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments sometime in its coming term in one of the most significant Fourth Amendment cases in years.
At issue in Carpenter v. United States is the question of whether the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained, without a search warrant, the cellphone records of suspected armed robber Timothy Carpenter. With those records, federal officials identified the cell towers that handled the suspect's calls and then proceeded to trace back his whereabouts during the time periods in which his alleged crimes were committed. That information was later used against Carpenter in court.
The Trump administration strongly urged the Supreme Court not to hear this case. Why? Because "a person has no Fourth Amendment interest in records created by a communications-service provider in the ordinary course of business that pertain to the individual's transactions with the service provider," the administration told the Court in its brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.
What is more, the administration argued, "the acquisition of a business's records does not constitute a Fourth Amendment 'search' of an individual customer even when the records reflect information pertaining to that customer."
This cramped view of the Fourth Amendment is extremely dangerous to the privacy rights of all Americans in the age of the smart phone. As the Supreme Court recognized in the 2014 case of Riley v. California, in which the Court unanimously told the police to "get a warrant" before searching cellphones incident to arrest, "modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life.' The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought."
Consider the sort of information a typical cellphone user shares with a cellphone company. It is much more than just numbers dialed or texted; it includes email addresses of correspondents, the URLs of websites visited, and, of course, the physical locations from which the device itself was accessed. Shouldn't the Fourth Amendment offer some genuine protection for such highly personal private information?
As a back-up argument, the Trump administration claims that even if the Fourth Amendment is held to apply to the cell-site information at issue in this case, the government's actions against Carpenter should still be ruled constitutional on the grounds that they are a "reasonable" exception to the normal requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
"Society has a strong interest in both promptly apprehending criminals and exonerating innocent suspects as early as possible during an investigation," the Trump administration argued. According to the government, in other words, it takes too long and causes too much hassle for law enforcement officials to bother getting a search warrant in cases like this.
But that view turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. One of the main purposes of the Fourth Amendment—as well as other guarantees in the Bill of Rights—is to restrain overzealous government agents before they run roughshod over the rights of individuals. The Trump administration, by contrast, wants to loosen such constitutional restrictions on the cops.
It is a heartening sign that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this important case over the objections of the Trump administration. Hopefully the Court will ultimately reject the administration's disfiguring interpretations and issue a decision that gives the Fourth Amendment its due.
It is not entirely surprising that the president doesn’t quite know what the FCC is or what it does. He was elected to the highest office in the land without quite understanding how a bill becomes a law — alas, Schoolhouse Rock has failed us! — and without really quite knowing what it is a president does. God help us all if he ever gets interested in the Federal Reserve or the Department of Energy.
Bill Mitchell, the Trump sycophant whose comprehensive lack of self-respect makes Paul Begala look like Cincinnatus, went on to argue that print publications such as Vanity Fair and the Washington Post should have their licenses revoked, too. There is no such thing as a newspaper license in the United States. There is the First Amendment. You’d think that Americans would love the First Amendment, which gives every ordinary yokel on Twitter the right to say the president is a fool and the police chief is incompetent and the chairman of the board might profitably be replaced by a not-especially-gifted chimpanzee. But it isn’t very popular at all: Gutting the First Amendment is one of the top priorities of the Democratic party, which seeks to revoke its protection of political speech — i.e., the thing it’s really there to protect — so that they can put restrictions on political activism, which restrictions they call “campaign-finance reform.”
They abominate the Supreme Court’s solid First Amendment decision in Citizens United, a case that involved not “money in politics” but the basic free-speech question of whether political activists should be allowed to show a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the days before an election. (Making a film and distributing it costs money, you see, hence “money in politics.”) They lost that one, but every Democrat in Harry Reid’s Senate — every one of them — voted to repeal the First Amendment.
"Considering that Trump hasn't enacted any fiscal legislation, it's a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels," Dan Mitchell, a libertarian economist at the Cato Institute, told the fact-checking website Politifact.
President Obama's first month in office in 2009 was largely taken up with spending bills aimed at easing the massive recession that he had inherited.
Trump inherited an economy with low inflation, low unemployment and a booming stock market.
The national debt, which stands at just under $20 trillion, is expected to rise by more than $500 billion in the fiscal year ending in September.
5. Nominated a Federal Reserve Chair who is another proponent of devaluing our dollar and unconstitutional central banking that has hurt middle and lower income Americans for generations
With Powell, Trump would have the Yellen policies without Yellen herself.
Since joining the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in 2012, Powell has proved reliable to both former Chairman Ben Bernanke and Yellen. During his tenure, he never voted against either one in setting monetary policy or on implementing the post-crisis financial rules.
Others Trump considered for the job would have come to the job with an agenda. For example, his economic adviser, Gary Cohn, has prominently advocated for reducing the burden of some of the new regulations on banks. Stanford professor John Taylor, another finalist, has criticized the Fed for not raising interest rates more quickly and for decades has advocated that central banks should rely more on predictable rules in setting monetary policy.
Powell, in contrast, has defended the Fed’s rules-free approach to setting interest rates. “Policy should be systematic, but not automatic,” he said in a speech in February in New York.
Where Taylor has aided congressional Republicans in contemplating legislation to reform the Fed, Powell has served as a spokesman for the central bank in batting back such bills. In particular, he has tried to wave Republicans off the “audit the Fed” bill introduced by libertarian Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Powell does have a Republican pedigree as well as a Wall Street pedigree that might appeal to some of the more pro-business elements of the party. Former President Barack Obama nominated him as a governor in 2011 paired with a Democratic candidate, possibly with the intention of getting them approved as a package deal at a time when Republican senators were holding up other nominees.
Long before joining the Fed, Powell served as a Treasury undersecretary for finance under President George H.W. Bush. He then worked at the Carlyle Group, a private equity fund, and also at an investment bank.
In terms of regulating Wall Street, Powell might prove to be more accommodating than Yellen. This year he sketched out a program for lightening the regulatory load that, while not as ambitious as the Trump Treasury’s agenda, shared several key features with it. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reportedly strongly favored Powell for the Fed post.
Even bankers eager to shed some of the Obama-era rules, however, see wise management of monetary policy as the most important aspect of the Fed chairman’s job. A misstep in managing the money supply could cost the entire economy and doom businesses, as economists generally believe happened in the Great Depression and at other points in the Fed’s history.
On that score, public knowledge of Powell’s private views is limited by the fact that he has not been at the Fed long enough for any of the transcripts of the monetary policy committee’s private deliberations to become public. Nor did he comment on interest rates or the Fed’s recession-era emergency stimulus before joining the central bank.
Unlike the only other governor currently at the Fed who has served a significant amount of time with Yellen, Lael Brainard, Powell has never ventured any skepticism of Yellen’s leadership. In recent years, as the Fed has repeatedly fallen short of its own 2 percent target, Brainard has suggested at times that looser money, for longer, might be necessary to raise inflation and ensure that the recovery is as strong as it could be. In that way, even without issuing a dissent at any of the Fed’s meetings, Brainard tried to sway the Fed’s course. Powell has not done so.
6. Has moved in the direction of protectionist trade policies, despite free trade supporting millions of jobs and helping reduce the cost of some consumer products
Economists from both the left and the right of the political spectrum have agreed for decades that a country always will lower its own economic welfare whenever it imposes import restrictions. This means the nation's overall level of prosperity and living standards will fall, not rise.
The Trump administration's efforts to tighten import restrictions on behalf of favored industries will harm economic growth, lead to lower employment, and increase costs to consumers. Not exactly a strategy to make America great again.
7. Continued the unconstitutional expansion of executive powers
With Washington distracted by the health care debate, President Donald Trump has quietly overseen an expansion in the administration’s war-making powers, giving the Department of Defense greater autonomy to conduct military operations independent of the White House.
8. Repealed net neutrality and replaced it with a previous policy that reduces competition in the market
Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon, has been a longtime critic of the net neutrality rules. Since President Trump appointed him as FCC chairman in January, Pai has made reversing the rules a key part of his deregulatory agenda.
Pai's decision to seek a full repeal of the rules was praised by the telecommunications trade groups as a boon for broadband investment, but loudly panned by the tech industry and consumer advocacy groups.
The Internet Association, a trade group that represents Facebook, Google and Amazon, described Pai's proposal as "the end of net neutrality as we know it."
"This proposal undoes nearly two decades of bipartisan agreement on baseline net neutrality principles that protect Americans' ability to access the entire internet," Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association, said in a statement.
U.S. Department of Justice officials met to discuss potential changes to federal marijuana enforcement policy this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced.
“We’re working on that very hard right now,” he said on Wednesday. “We had meetings yesterday and talked about it at some length. It’s my view that the use of marijuana is detrimental and we should not give encouragement in any way to it. And it represents a federal violation which is in the law and is subject to being enforced, and our priorities will have to be focused on all the things and challenges that we face.”
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) slammed President Trump following his address on the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, saying he “bowed to [the] military-industrial establishment" with his open-ended plan.
Even before he was sworn in, Trump got behind $7 million in Indiana tax cuts for heating and cooling manufacturer Carrier Corp. as part of trying to at least temporarily keep about 730 jobs in the state. His actions prompted former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, an early Trump campaign supporter, to call the deal “corporate welfare” and “crony capitalism.”
Eight months later, Trump showcased the Foxconn deal at the White House as he sought credit for his administration’s role in a job-boosting project for a state critical to his re-election prospects. Foxconn had identified several states -- including Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin -- as potential sites and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, was among the White House officials who facilitated meetings between executives and state officials.
Negotiations were left to Foxconn leaders and state officials, and Wisconsin officials have said they weren’t the highest offer on the table. Left unsaid by the president and Walker is that it will take at least 25 years for the state to recoup the money it pays out in credits to Foxconn, nonpartisan estimates show.
More incentive deals are already in the works. Roughly a dozen states are vying for a plant Toyota Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor Corp. are expected to announce jointly in early 2018 that could result in as many as 4,000 jobs. And last week’s announcement that Amazon.com Inc. is looking for a second corporate headquarters that could eventually house 50,000 workers already has Chicago, Boston and other cities competing.
Walker’s support for Foxconn angers Bob Fettig, a metal fabrication company owner in Wisconsin who typically has supported the governor and donates at least $100,000 a year to the Koch network.
‘Winners and Losers’
“This is a perfect example of cronyism and to me it’s disgusting,” he said. “It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money and is picking winners and losers.”
Frayda Levin, a former book distributor in New Jersey who serves on the national board of Americans for Prosperity and the conservative Club for Growth, said it’s “heartbreaking” to see Republican governors embrace “corporate giveaways.”
“Once you tell one child they can have candy, all the rest are going to ask for candy, too,” said Levin, who also contributes at least $100,000 a year to the Koch network. “Sadly, in this case, it’s only the big bullies who get the candy.”
While she’ll continue to support Walker, Levin said, Foxconn makes her less eager to do so. “On the margin, you give less support, you are less enthusiastic, you are less complimentary,” she said.
Tom Evenson, a Walker spokesman, said it’s hard to avoid tax breaks when virtually all other states use them. "Wisconsin is not unique in terms of competing for major industries and is not about to disarm given its success," he said.
In Iowa, Republican Governor Kim Reynolds had been in office less than three months before she got behind a more than $200 million local and state incentive deal in August for Apple Inc., which plans to build a data center that’s expected to initially create 50 jobs.
Kentucky Republican Governor Matt Bevin supported $40 million in tax incentives that went to Amazon, as part of a cargo hub project that calls for the company to invest $1.49 billion and bring nearly 3,000 new jobs. Bevin, like Walker, has strong ties to the Koch network and has appeared at their donor events.
A review by the Wall Street Journal found that Trump has visited his properties 100 times, including spending 40 days at his golf resort in Bedminster, NJ, and 40 days at Mar-a-Lago, known as the “Winter White House.”
You are really good at cut and paste. Too bad few will bother reading it.
I say wait until Trump's State of the Union when he lists all of his accomplishments, most of which never get reported by propaganda media. Another nail in the coffin for mainstream opposition media when the audience says, "When did all of this happen and why didn't I hear about it."
You are really good at cut and paste. Too bad few will bother reading it.
I say wait until Trump's State of the Union when he lists all of his accomplishments, most of which never get reported by propaganda media. Another nail in the coffin for mainstream opposition media when the audience says, "When did all of this happen and why didn't I hear about it."
You mean when he recites his long littany of lies, culled from his Twitter posts? Gosh, I can't wait to hear that ****.
"Stock Market is at record highs, never mind 7 years under Obama it was all ME ME ME..."
"I SAVED Christmas for you!...Many people are saying they couldn't say 'Merry Christmas's and now they can..."
You are really good at cut and paste. Too bad few will bother reading it.
I say wait until Trump's State of the Union when he lists all of his accomplishments, most of which never get reported by propaganda media. Another nail in the coffin for mainstream opposition media when the audience says, "When did all of this happen and why didn't I hear about it."
Thank you!
The reason I like to list sources is so people can't say I'm making stuff up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
I wasn't about to wade through all that propaganda.
All that need saying was Trump won and the left is butt hurt like a horse mating with a gay fruit fly.
I am the opposite of a liberal, Trump has not done a good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
You mean when he recites his long littany of lies, culled from his Twitter posts? Gosh, I can't wait to hear that ****.
"Stock Market is at record highs, never mind 7 years under Obama it was all ME ME ME..."
"I SAVED Christmas for you!...Many people are saying they couldn't say 'Merry Christmas's and now they can..."
What's funny about the Christmas thing is, Trump has sought to undermine the first amendment in other ways. So it's all political/PR for him.
Historic tax legislation and putting an end to the Unaffordable Care Act makes Trump's first year one of the most successful beginnings in American history.
Trumpees will say he is the best thing since sliced bread, but the truth is, he has been a major flop. The only big thing about his Presidency is that he has told more and bigger lies than anyone else who ever held that office.
The reason I like to list sources is so people can't say I'm making stuff up.
I am the opposite of a liberal, Trump has not done a good job.
You cite known liberal propaganda cites like CNN, who does make stuff up, so that comment doesn't save you.
Making the claim I'm not a liberal and offering the same opinions as a liberal is a common practice.
I'm a liberal conservative and the liberal part says : Your opinion is designated hate speech and needs to be banned because as a liberal only opinions I agree with are allowed speech.
Quote:
What's funny about the Christmas thing is, Trump has sought to undermine the first amendment in other ways. So it's all political/PR for him.
Hogwash opinion bantered about by farm animals in a barnyard.
You are really good at cut and paste. Too bad few will bother reading it.
I say wait until Trump's State of the Union when he lists all of his accomplishments, most of which never get reported by propaganda media. Another nail in the coffin for mainstream opposition media when the audience says, "When did all of this happen and why didn't I hear about it."
Liberals are simply butt-hurt. They can't stand that America is winning again and didn't become a 3rd-world country as they and Obama had wished. At least seven more good years still ahead. This is a wonderful holiday season!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
