Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Dalton]

They're...not supposed to do that.

[Thanas]

They're...not supposed to do that.

Honestly at this point I am just wondering when Comey gets a cushy retirement post by some Trump company.

[Dalton]

They're...not supposed to do that.

Honestly at this point I am just wondering when Comey gets a cushy retirement post by some Trump company.

US Ambassador to Barbados maybe :-\

[Flagg]

Oh this is rich. Remember Comey, the guy who "just happened" to leak the new inquiry into clinton emails to congress? And who "just happened" to remain FBI director for saving Trump's election being a patriot. And who "just happened" to refuse to deny or confirm whether there was investigations into Trump and his Russian contacts?

Well, turns out he is totally fine with discussing such investigation with the White House Chief of Staff.

Link

The White House on Friday acknowledged that Priebus, FBI director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe had discussed what the FBI knew about Russian ties to the Trump presidential campaign.

God damn I hate this joke of an Oligarchy so fucking much I have to laugh.

[Flagg]

They're...not supposed to do that.

Honestly at this point I am just wondering when Comey gets a cushy retirement post by some Trump company.

They'll probably blow his brains out on the Washington Mall and say "It was the Clinton Mafia!!!"

[FaxModem1]

What's the value of a free lunch?

Yahoo News

DeVos Questions If Schools Should Provide Free Lunch

International Business Times
Pranshu Rathi
International Business TimesFebruary 24, 2017
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made a seemingly innocuous joke Thursday about no one getting a free lunch. But the comment came as DeVos, a staunch opponent of public schools, is taking over the nation's free lunch program that provides nutrition to low-income students and is under attack from Republicans, raising questions about whether the administration of President Donald Trump will protect food aid programs for children, NPR reported.
During her opening remarks at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in the outskirts of Washington, Devos jokingly said she is the "first person to tell Bernie Sanders to his face, there's no such thing as a free lunch." The debate over free lunch, however, is no joke. Last year, Republicans pushed to introduce a bill that could have stopped thousands of schools from offering free lunch to all public school students.


Republicans were unsuccessful in passing the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016 (H.R. 5003) bill that aimed to reform an Obama-era program called Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). Republicans who pushed for the bill argued that the CEP is a waste of taxpayers’ money as it subsidizes the meals of kids who can afford to pay for them. In particular, the bill aimed to reform the minimum eligibility criteria for receiving free lunch, according to the Washington Post.
Under the program, schools or school districts where 40 percent of the students meet the requirement for a free lunch can also provide meals to all students for free. In turn, schools are reimbursed based on the percentage of low-income students. Republicans argued for hiking the 40 percent eligibility criteria to 60 percent.
But Democrats argue providing free lunch to all student reduces the stigma attached to getting free meals at school. “Students are free to eat without being categorized and stigmatized, and this has created a wonderful climate of equality and cooperation,” Pruitt Jill Pruitt, the eighth-grade counselor at Coffee Middle School in south central Georgia, told the Atlantic.
Betti J. Wiggins, executive director of Detroit Public School's office of school nutrition, said students don't like to admit they come from poor backgrounds. “Many students whose household incomes say they are full-pay may in reality be the household where our students are the most food insecure,” he said.
In most states, students that come from a family of four earning $44,955 or less qualify for reduced-price meals and student with families earning $31,590 or less get free meals. Roughly 31 million American school children qualify for free lunch.

I'm curious if she will honestly try to raise the standards for who gets into the free lunch program, or if Yahoo is being hyperbolic. Or both.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the Comey thing-

Their is no more infuriating example of Obama's weak leadership than the fact that he did not demand Comey's resignation after the FBI pulled its blatant electioneering stunt with the Clinton email investigation.

[FaxModem1]

Think Progress

Trump hiring freeze forces suspension of military child care programs
Trump has already reneged on a campaign promise to service members.


CREDIT: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Announcing his pick for Secretary of Defense last December, Trump promised that, when he became president, “all men and women in uniform will have the supplies, support, equipment, training, services, medical care, and resources they need to get the job done incredibly well and perfectly.”
It’s not turning out that way.
On January 23, Trump announced a hiring freeze for federal workers. While the freeze included exemptions for those “working in the military” and other national security positions, members of the Armed Forces are feeling the effects.
At least two Army bases are suspending childcare programs, citing staff shortages related to the hiring freeze.
In Fort Knox, Kentucky, garrison commander Col. Stephen Aiton sent a memo on February 17 immediately suspending new enrollment in the childcare program. He also announced that hourly and part-day services would be eliminated at the end of the month “until further notice.” Those part-day services includes preschool.
Aiton explained that “due to the federal hiring freeze” the facility was “prevented from bringing on new caregivers” to replace those that are leaving. The freeze is making it a challenge to provide “quality childcare,” Alton wrote.

Similarly, the Army garrison in Wiesbaden, Germany announced that it was suspending all part-day programs. Col. Todd Fish said the suspension was “a result of staff shortage due to the federal hiring freeze.”

A Department of Defense memo implementing the hiring freeze exempted certain classes of civilian workers, including “child care to the children of military personnel.” But another memo from the Army required special permission from the service secretary before filing the positions. This has created an additional layer of bureaucracy in an already cumbersome hiring system, apparently creating shortages.
UPDATE (2/22): A military spouse from Germany speaks out:

Well, let's see how much Trump can hobble the government by doing this.

[Thanas]

In a desperate attempt by Trump to change the topic away from the FBI and to continue his war on media, several news outlets have now been barred from access.

link

The White House barred several news organizations from an off-camera press briefing on Friday, handpicking a select group of reporters that included a number of conservative outlets friendly toward Donald Trump.

The “gaggle” with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, took place in lieu of his daily briefing and was originally scheduled as an on-camera event.

But the White House press office announced later in the day that the Q&A session would take place off camera before only an “expanded pool” of journalists, and in Spicer’s West Wing office as opposed to the James S Brady press briefing room where it is typically held.

Outlets seeking to gain entry whose requests were denied included the Guardian, the New York Times, Politico, CNN, BuzzFeed, the BBC, the Daily Mail and others. Conservative publications such as Breitbart News, the One America News Network and the Washington Times were allowed into the meeting, as well as TV networks CBS, NBC, Fox and ABC. The Associated Press and Time were invited but boycotted the briefing.

The decision to limit access to Spicer, hours after Trump once again declared that much of the media was “the enemy of the American people” while speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, marked a dramatic shift.

While prior administrations have occasionally held background briefings with smaller groups of reporters, it is highly unusual for the White House to cherry-pick which media outlets can participate in what would have otherwise been the press secretary’s televised daily briefing. The briefing has become indispensable viewing for journalists trying to interpret the often contradictory statements coming out of the Trump administration, and Spicer’s aggressive handling of the press and delivery of false or misleading statements have already been memorably mocked on NBC’s Saturday Night Live.

“Gaggles” – more informal briefings – with the press secretary are traditionally only limited to the pool when they conflict with the president’s travel, in which case they often take place aboard Air Force One. At times, impromptu gaggles form with reporters who spend their days in the White House, but denying outlets wishing to participate is extremely uncommon.

The White House Correspondents Association president, Jeff Mason, said the organization’s board was “protesting strongly” against the Trump administration’s action.

“We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” Mason said. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

The executive editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, said “nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties”.

Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for the White House, said: “Claims that outlets were excluded are not factual.”

In a statement, she added: “The pool was there, so various media mediums were represented.” The pool is a system by which a small group of reporters take turns covering the president and share their reports of his activities with a larger group.

Contrary to Grisham’s statement, outlets who made requests to attend were told this would not be permitted.

When the Guardian asked to participate, pointing to its possession of a “hard pass” that grants daily entry to the White House, an official declined.

“No, unfortunately a hard pass does not necessarily guarantee entry into the gaggle,” Catherine Hicks, a junior White House press aide, emailed in response.

“The gaggle today is just today’s pool with the addition of a few others here at the White House.”

Some outlets lingered in the West Wing hallway out of frustration but were asked by a Secret Service agent, upon instructions from the White House press office, to leave the area.

Earlier on Friday, Trump continued his assault on the press in a speech before the nation’s largest gathering of conservative activists.

He said the press should not be allowed to use anonymous sources, a restriction on free speech he has not suggested before. “You will see stories dry up like you have never seen before,” Trump predicted.

“As you saw throughout the entire campaign, and even now, the fake news doesn’t tell the truth,” Trump said at CPAC.

“I say it doesn’t represent the people, it never will represent the people, and we’re going to do something about it.”

Trump’s comments came on the heels of revelations that his chief of staff spoke with top officials at the FBI about the bureau’s investigation into potential links between the president’s associates and Russia. The White House lambasted the reports, which appeared in CNN and the Associated Press, but in doing so confirmed the conversations between Reince Priebus, the FBI director, James Comey, and his deputy, Andrew McCabe.

The decision by Trump’s administration to restrict access to the press for Spicer’s briefing prompted at least some seasoned reporters to observe that the White House had successfully changed the topic:

"+And now, the topic of the evening is the media outlets excluded, not the Priebus interactions w FBI + question of open investigation."

Spicer defended his move in the off-camera gaggle, telling reporters at the private briefing that he was keeping with a promise “to hold sort of gathering [with the press] every day”.

“The president spoke today. As you know we don’t generally do – we haven’t done briefings when the president’s had a major event or an event with a world leader,” Spicer said. Events with world leaders typically include at least a few press questions; Trump’s appearance at CPAC was a speech with no questions.

Spicer added: “We want to make sure we answer your questions, but we don’t need to do everything on camera every day.”

[FaxModem1]

I didn't have to wait long:

Huffington Post

Donald Trump Claims He Saved $1 Billion On Air Force One. That’s News To The Military.
The president says he met with generals and Boeing for merely an hour to get an unbelievable discount.
By Mary Papenfuss

President Donald Trump bragged at his recent Florida rally that after a negotiating session of merely an hour he managed to shave a billion dollars off the price of a new Air Force One. The only problem is that the Air Force reportedly has no idea what he’s talking about.

Advertisement

AdChoices
“They were close to signing a $4.2 billion deal to have a new Air Force One,” Trump said Saturday. “Can you believe this? I said, ‘No way.’ I said, ‘I refuse to fly in a $4.2 billion airplane. I refuse.’”

“We got that price down by over $1 billion, and I probably haven’t spoken, to be honest with you, for more than an hour on the project,” he continued. “I got the generals in, who are fantastic. I got Boeing in. But I told Boeing, it’s not good enough. We’re not going to do it. The price is still too high.”

But Air Force spokesman Col. Pat Ryder told Bloomberg, “To my knowledge I have not been told that we have that information.” He suggested a call to the White House, which had not responded to requests as of Friday.

Trump threatened in December to cancel any contract with aircraft maker Boeing after again mentioning a $4 billion Air force One. “We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money,” he said.

The Air Force plans to replace both of its two Air Force One jets — each about 26 years old — by 2024. Boeing would replace the current 747s with modified 747-8s, which are longer, have a wider wingspan, and are capable of flying 1,000 miles farther without refueling, according to Stars and Stripes. Air Force One is essentially a flying Oval Office from which the president could run the country.

But Ryder said the price had not been determined and the new jets have yet to be designed. So it’s unclear what Trump might have been negotiating.

Boeing is now operating under an initial $172 million contract to determine basic capabilities and compatibilities of the new aircraft, according to a Boeing statement. Contracts will be awarded as early as June for design. The two unmodified aircraft that will be transformed into Air Force One will be purchased from Boeing in a separate contract, the Air Force Times has reported.

“That will give us a better idea of how much we’ll be looking at for the cost,” Ryder told Stars and Stripes.

The White House Military Office, not the Air Force, determines the Air Force One’s security and communications requirements and accommodation requirements, said Ryder. So Trump could radically reduce his own demands if he’s looking for a cheaper way to fly.

He has talked about having only one, not two, Air Force Ones.

“I don’t want to speak for the White House. But ... having two aircraft gives you the flexibility you need to ensure you are able to meet the mission requirements,” Ryder told Stars and Stripes. “Having another aircraft gives you the ability to put one into phased maintenance, for example, or if there are issues with that aircraft you have other options.”

Trump’s Defense Secretary James Mattis in January ordered a review of how to reduce the costs of Air Force One. The budget for the Air Force One program is $1.9 billion through 2019.

Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher told Bloomberg in an email, “We are committed to working [with] the Trump administration and Defense Department on innovative approaches to affordably provide the capabilities America’s military needs.”

IE, no one but Trump has any idea what he's talking about.

[Lost Soal]

IE, no one but Trump has any idea what he's talking about.

Based on this story I think you got that backwards. Trump is the one with no clue what he's talking about as he was apparently having a conversation with himself.

[Flagg]

No, he's doing this thing called "lying". It's very effective in a country full of squirrel shit eating NASCAR enthusiasts. I mean they pay money to watch cars driving in an oval for 4 hours, not too hard to trick them.

[FaxModem1]

At this point, which is worse: a president who constantly lies, or one who is so crazy that his sense of reality is different from the real world?

[The Romulan Republic]

Depends on the nature of his delusions to some extent, I suppose.

A President who shares Mr. Bannon's delusions about an inevitable global war between America and Islam/China is a very alarming prospect indeed.

[Flagg]

At this point, which is worse: a president who constantly lies, or one who is so crazy that his sense of reality is different from the real world?

Depends on the magnitude of each. But Trumpus Infectus Wangus is such an obvious liar because he knows that by the time the media can call him on it, he's 5 lies ahead. And if somehow the media does call him a liar on a certain issue he just insults them, talks about his 306 electoral votes, and then calls every media outlet (aside from FOX), "fake news".

[Simon_Jester]

I have this image- it's something of a fantasy- of some organization that just pays half a dozen interns to keep little portfolios on each Trump lie- the consequential ones about government programs and such, mind you.

So that some day someone can dump a 5000-page stack of binders on a table and say "Mr. President, it says in these accumulated summaries of your public statements over the past three years that you have saved the United States a total of eight times its annual budget, 'permanently solved' the same problem five times, et cetera, et cetera... At long last, sir, is there anything left in that cranium of yours besides the bullshit?"

All carefully annotated and documented.

Before people start telling me why this can't happen or wouldn't matter...

Can you just take a moment to step back and recognize the beauty of it?

[K. A. Pital]

Nobody will care, Simon. Trump will present alternative facts or laugh it off as some glasses guys trying to do more sensational fake news out of nothing.

And the people will believe Trump. They'll laugh at those who gathered his statements because they already understand those were "hyperboles" never meant to be taken seriously.

The Orange Leader smiles and waves the hand, and gives power "back to the people". And the crowds roar.

This is what's gonna happen.

[Ralin]

Only if it was done on TV in front of Congress.

[Flagg]

I have this image- it's something of a fantasy- of some organization that just pays half a dozen interns to keep little portfolios on each Trump lie- the consequential ones about government programs and such, mind you.

So that some day someone can dump a 5000-page stack of binders on a table and say "Mr. President, it says in these accumulated summaries of your public statements over the past three years that you have saved the United States a total of eight times its annual budget, 'permanently solved' the same problem five times, et cetera, et cetera... At long last, sir, is there anything left in that cranium of yours besides the bullshit?"

All carefully annotated and documented.

Before people start telling me why this can't happen or wouldn't matter...

Can you just take a moment to step back and recognize the beauty of it?

You assume that one, he cares, 2, he can read and 3, there exists a structure that could hold all that weight.
Really, I think that a link to the thousands of YouTube videos his semi-literate base could be linked to would be far more effective (assuming there is wi-fi they can steal)

[Simon_Jester]

So in other words, the answer to the question at the end of my post is "no, no one can, we're too busy one-upping each other with declarations of how much faith we've lost."

[FaxModem1]

Immigrant family serving in the US Military? Doesn't matter, deport his family anyway.

San Diego Union Tribune

Trump order drops protection for families of deployed military

Trump administration’s new immigration enforcement policy eviscerated “Parole in Place” protections, which prevented the deportation of spouses, parents and children of active-duty service members.
Nathan Fletcher
Imagine you are a member of the United States military deployed on the front lines confronting ISIS or other terrorist threats. Suddenly you get a desperate phone call from home — Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested your family and they’re facing deportation.

Think it can’t happen? Think again. Think Trump.

The Trump administration’s draconian and hastily drafted immigration orders rescind a key protection for military families so that now even military spouses and children can be rounded up and deported. This will weaken our armed forces. It will harm thousands of military families. And it’s wrong.

In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security, at the request of the Defense Department, issue a policy memorandum aimed at preventing the deportation of spouses, parents and children of active-duty service members through a program called “Parole in Place.”

Put simply, the program allowed immigration authorities to give the immediate family of military service members a temporary reprieve from enforcement actions based on their immigration status. It specifically barred those with criminal convictions from these protections.

This was as much about national security as it was about upholding our commitment to support our troops. The Department of Homeland Security wrote, at the time, that “military preparedness can potentially be adversely affected if active members of the U.S. armed forces … worry about the immigration status of their spouses, parents and children.” We need our service members focused on accomplishing their mission and the safety of each other.

When you deploy to war, your greatest worry is not yourself. You worry about your family left behind. The least we can promise those willing to give their life for our country is that their immediate family members can remain in that same country. By all accounts, the policy has worked well.

Yet the Trump administration’s new immigration enforcement policy eviscerated “Parole in Place” protections. It does not continue a policy that reflects a promise made to recruits who joined the United States military in the last four years.

The new enforcement directive could have easily maintained the protections of this unique program, as it did a few others. It could have made clear that agents of the U.S. government will not round up and deport the spouses and children of our active duty service members.

Instead, it casually dispenses with exercises of executive discretion based on a “specified class or category of aliens.” The administration either did not know or did not care that one of these specified classes included military families.

That may be good politics for the red states, but it’s terrible national security policy for the United States, and a slap in the face to thousands of deployed troops with immigrant roots.

We cannot allow our troops to be consumed with fear and anxiety about their families while deployed on the front lines. We cannot indiscriminately endanger the family members of the citizens who sacrifice the most for our nation.

The initial reasoning and effort that created this program was sound. It strengthens our military and our country. It is wrong to go back on our word and our commitment to the very citizens who sacrifice the most. It isn’t enough to clap for veterans in airports or once a year on a holiday. We show our true appreciation by keeping our word, in this instance by protecting their families.

The Trump administration must immediately and explicitly clarify that the “Parole in Place” program for military families remains the law of the land. If Trump can turn out sweeping executive orders in a matter of days, surely he can fix this terrible mistake in a matter of minutes.

Fletcher is a U.S. Marines combat veteran, a professor of practice in political science at UC San Diego and a former member of the California Assembly representing the 75th District. Twitter: @nathanfletcher

So, essentially, if you're an immigrant who joined the US military, which there are some, or your family are composed of illegal immigrants, being in the US military guaranteed they wouldn't be deported. Trump has just thrown that away.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, between this and the recent loss of child care story someone posted, Trump is sure pissing on the armed forces a lot. Not a smart move for someone who wants to be an authoritarian ruler, but maybe that's for the best. If, God forbid, everyone's worst-case predictions about the Donald do come true, the fewer soldiers who are inclined to side with him, the better.

[Ralin]

Oh god, being in the military doesn't secure you and your entire family the privilege of not having to deal with the same shit as everyone else?

The horror. It's almost like they aren't semi-divine superheroes.

[mr friendly guy]

They shouldn't be like superheroes. However I have observed that a lot of Americans treat them close to it, so I can see why it might be a controversy.

[Flagg]

So in other words, the answer to the question at the end of my post is "no, no one can, we're too busy one-upping each other with declarations of how much faith we've lost."

Sorry man, shits hitting me too fucking personal and the fuckstick Donnie Douchebag counts as his "base" are the worst types of "people". And the sad part of it is the very description I laid out fits several members of my extended family to a T.