When amateurs are in control...

[WIHS2006]

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

The chaos this created makes sense when looked at as a "shock event,"

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:

"Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order."

"When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event."

So keep your eyes peeled for the slight of hand that Bannon and Trump will try to slip past folks while they busy trying to settle this gawdawful Muslim travel ban.

Hmm I read Richardson's analysis this morning and I am going to guess that Bannon/Trump will try and change some sort of Federal policy that would be very controversial. It would have to be something that the president or a cabinet secretary could change unilaterally without the involvement of Congress.

Any ideas? I was going to suggest eliminating birthright citizenship but that would require a constitutional amendment.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

Yep. Any talk of president needing experience has gone out the window when Obama won over McCain. Hussein Obama laid the foundation for Trump to be elected

Pres. Obama had been a US and a State Senator. He hired experienced professionals in cabinet and other administration jobs--and he let them do their jobs. Policy pronouncements and executive orders went through appropriate channels before issuance (like policy & legal review).

Trump either doesn't know, or doesn't care about process. It doesn't matter which is the case, because the result is exactly what we saw this weekend: chaos, flagrant illegality, and harm to law-abiding and vulnerable people.

The Executive Order was not a harmless (or victimless) error. It upended the lives of permanent residents, students, visa holders, and tourists. Those included people who came to the United States as children, are 100% lawful residents, who have lived here their entire lives, and who decided to take a vacation to Italy. All of a sudden, their right to return to the United States--to their home, job, and family--was thrown in question.

And refugees who had passed through the analysis justifying their resettlement--people who were fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries--lost their refuge. Their fates are at best uncertain, and this order creates suffering (and even death) for them.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Originally Posted by WIHS2006

Hmm I read Richardson's analysis this morning and I am going to guess that Bannon/Trump will try and change some sort of Federal policy that would be very controversial. It would have to be something that the president or a cabinet secretary could change unilaterally without the involvement of Congress.

Any ideas? I was going to suggest eliminating birthright citizenship but that would require a constitutional amendment.

It may be that they were trying to slip past Steve "Burn the Place Down" Bannon appointment to the NCS.

Technically, Trump appointed both Bannon and Reince Priebus to the principals committee not the NCS.

Likely because of "U.S. Code 50, section 3021, defines the members of the council as the president, vice president, secretaries of state, defense, energy and "the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments, when appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,[/b] to serve at his pleasure."

Steve Bannon on National Security Council May Require Senate Confirmation | Politics | US News

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Yesterday, Spicer tried to spin this by stating that Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs attended classified National Security Council meetings "all the time."

It appears that that, once again, Spicer was misinformed.

Axelrod was clear that during the deliberations over the strategy the U.S would pursue in the war with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he and press secretary Robert Gibbs sat on the sidelines as a silent observers "because we would be called upon to publicly discuss the president's decision on that critical matter and the process by which he arrived at it."

Axelrod explained that he was never a member and never spoke or participated.

David Axelrod: I woke up this morning as an alternative fact - CNN.com