Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

Cite how much this burden is. I hear fair-skinned individuals require additional sunscreen when deployed overseas. This means we probably should also ban those too.

Did you get the impression I thought that was an actual issue?

You didn't indicate it wasn't. As someone who gets raked over the coals for obvious hyperbole I can say without reservation that you didn't give any indication you weren't in favor of President Dingleberry banning Transgendered from serving.

[Ralin]

You didn't indicate it wasn't. As someone who gets raked over the coals for obvious hyperbole I can say without reservation that you didn't give any indication you weren't in favor of President Dingleberry banning Transgendered from serving.

Huh, I thought it was stupid enough that it would be obvious. Sorry then.

But yes, ridiculous as it is (the number I'm seeing thrown around on Twitter is that the military spend four times as much on Viagra as on trans related expenses, though I haven't seen a source for that) I think that's part of what Trump is going for.

[The Romulan Republic]

I honestly wonder sometimes how long its going to be before someone in the military decides that a coup is the lesser evil. Not advocating that myself, obviously. But I doubt that they appreciate being left out of the loop on issues relating to their country's security by a President who's the geo-political equivalent of handing a hand grenade to drunk.

I'd recommend reading up on Nixon's time in office. He was often drunk/high/other, and so Kissinger would act as something of an intermediary whenever he decided to nuke or invade something. So presumably there's every chance that if he orders a needless strike against the DPRK/China/Madagascar, the next guy along the chain can go "Uh... no."

Yeah, I'd heard that towards the end, their was basically an understanding that they wouldn't launch an attack on Nixon's orders without confirming it with the Secretary of State.

One can only hope similar procedures are in place to keep Dickless's tiny hands off the big red button.

[Crazedwraith]

Joint Chiefs: 'No modifications' to transgender policy from Trump tweet

There will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy as a result of President Donald Trump’s declared ban on transgender men and women on Twitter, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said in a message to top military officers on Thursday -- the latest sign of the disarray following the commander-in-chief's abrupt announcement.

Marine Gen. Joe Dunford also wrote in the message, which was sent to the chiefs of the military branches and senior enlisted leaders, that the military will continue to “treat all of our personnel with respect.”

“I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President,” Dunford wrote in the internal communication, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO. “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.”

“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions,” he continued.

The president said Wednesday in a series of three tweets that transgender troops would no longer be allowed to serve in any capacity, sparking questions about what that would mean for the thousands currently in uniform and whether it constitutes an official policy change.

The announcement also sparked fierce criticism from lawmakers in both parties, while advocacy groups immediately threatened to take the president to court to overturn any ban.

Dunford's message was seconded later in the day by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis' chief spokeswoman.

"The Department of Defense is awaiting formal guidance from the White House as a follow-up to the Commander-in-Chief's announcement on military service by transgender personnel," Dana White said. "We will provide detailed guidance to the Department in the near future for how this policy change will be implemented.

"The Department will continue to focus on our mission of defending our nation and on-going operations against our foes, while ensuring all servicemembers are treated with respect," she added.

The Pentagon's position underscored how the military, like legal experts, does not consider the president's social media pronouncements policy.

In an appearance at the National Press Club, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, also said later Thursday that Dunford is “exactly right” and that the military will work through new guidance when it gets a formal directive from the White House through normal channels.

“We grow up and learn to obey the chain of command, and my chain of command is secretary of the Army, secretary of Defense and the president,” Milley said. “We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it…To my knowledge, the Department of Defense, Secretary Mattis has not received written directives yet.”

Milley also doubled down on Dunford’s message that every service member – “bar none” – should and will always be treated with dignity and respect.

Only a formal directive through the chain of command would lead to a real policy change, said Tobias Wolff, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School.

He said that Dunford’s statement makes it clear that the Pentagon does not make major changes to its policy because of a tweet – “and he was right to do so.”

“The chairman of the joint chiefs is respecting the rule of law and the role of the secretary of defense, and he is protecting commanders in the field from having good order and discipline undermined,” Wolff said. “General Dunford should never have been put in this position. It is a reflection of the crisis we now face with this increasingly unstable and reckless individual occupying the presidency.”

Dru Brenner-Beck, a retired Army judge advocate general and president of the National Institute for Military Justice, told POLITICO that under normal procedure the president would issue an executive order instructing the Pentagon to go about changing the department’s personnel policy — but only after Defense Department officials coordinated with various parts of the military and weighed in on the proposed changes in the draft order.

Brenner-Beck said its even legally questionable whether a declaration from the president’s personal social media account is enough to launch the process of rewriting Pentagon regulations, calling it “a whole new frontier."

“A tweet doesn’t really give you policy,” she said. “How do you implement a tweet? Usually you would have some kind of an actual policy document that comes down.”

A Defense Department official, speaking on the condition they not be named, said Thursday that the Pentagon is scrambling to coordinate with the White House for guidance on the way forward, noting that there is an urgent need to explain to the troops what it means.

Transgender troops -- which by some estimates number as high as 15,000 and as few as 1,300 -- have been allowed to serve openly since June of 2016. The Pentagon has been studying ways to implement the decision for new recruits -- including questions about housing and medical care.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis last month ordered that review be extended another six months.

The Pentagon's policy changes have not been without controversy. House Republicans, as part of defense spending legislation now under consideration, have sought to prohibit the Pentagon from paying for troops' gender transition surgery.

But virtually no one has suggested drumming them out of the military altogether.

"Everyone was confused and I think there are still confused," said Radha Iyengar, a senior economist at the government-funded Rand Corporation, who authored a recent study for the pentagon on the medical costs associated with transgender service members. "I think the Joint Chiefs statement helps that but we are waiting to see what the actual policy is."

So basically nothing is happening until Trump says something actually official and get's it implement by the Secretary of Defense. Tweets don't count. So while an unpleasant look into Trump's thoughts. Transgender soldiers aren't being kicked out tomorrow.

[Khaat]

Just testing the waters and stirring the shitstorm: what he does best.

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Donald Trump ranked himself 2nd on a list of most 'presidential' presidents
CNN
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 3:58 PM ET, Wed July 26, 2017
Trump: I can be more presidential than anyone
Source: CNN
Trump: I can be more presidential than anyone 01:03
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
It's impossible to fact-check Trump's claims
But there are rankings of the best presidents ever
(CNN)At a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, Tuesday night, President Donald Trump mused on critics who say he doesn't act "presidential" enough.

"It is much easier to act presidential than what we are doing here tonight, believe me," Trump assured his audience. "With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that's ever held this office."
Well then.
Lincoln has frequently been singled out for praise by Trump and used as a point of reference when he is when pondering the impact of his own presidency.
Trump makes 'presidential' pitch at Ohio rally
Trump makes 'presidential' pitch at Ohio rally
"Great president," Trump said of Lincoln in March of this year. "Most people don't even know he was a Republican. Right? Does anyone know? A lot of people don't know that. We have to build that up a little more."
A year earlier -- in April 2016 -- Trump said this of Lincoln in an interview with the Washington Post: "I can be very presidential. I jokingly say, I can be more presidential than any president that this country has ever had except for Abraham Lincoln, because he was [unclear]. Right? You can't out-top Abraham Lincoln."
"Jokingly." Ahem.
It's impossible to fact-check Trump's claims to being more "presidential" than anyone but Lincoln since no sort of grading system of the 44 men who have been president includes such a subjective measure.
But! There are rankings of the best presidents ever -- including one C-SPAN has been conducting since 2000 and just updated earlier this year!
Trump calls out Murkowski over health care vote
Trump calls out Murkowski over health care vote
In those rankings, which are determined by the collective views of a group of historians, Lincoln has been ranked as the best president in history in each of the three years (2000, 2009, 2017) C-SPAN has conducted the survey. George Washington finished second in 2017 and 2009 and third in 2000. Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been third in the last two C-SPAN survey but was second in 2000.
The highest ranking modern president is Barack Obama who comes in 12th in the 2017 survey. Bill Clinton is 15th -- the same spot he held in 2009 but up 6 spots from his initial ranking in 2000.
The lowest ranked modern president is George W. Bush at 33rd in 2017, up from 36th in 2009. The worst-rated president overall is James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861. (Trump wasn't included in the C-SPAN survey since he only assumed the presidency in January 2017.)
Trump rips Sessions, even as AG attends White House meeting
Trump rips Sessions, even as AG attends White House meeting
While there is no ranking of the presidents by "presidential-ness" in the C-SPAN survey, there are rankings of each man in 10 specific categories considered essential to presidential success (or failure).
On "public persuasion" -- which is kind of like being "presidential" -- FDR is ranked No. 1 followed by Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington and Ronald Reagan. (Clinton is 9th. Obama is 10th. Bush is 25th.)
On "vision/setting an agenda" -- again, sort of "presidential" -- the top 5 goes like this: Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. (Obama is 12th, Clinton 19th, Bush 26th.)
On "moral authority" -- another piece of being "presidential" -- it's Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt. (Obama is 7th, Bush is 34th and Clinton is 38th.)
In short: If Trump wants to slide into the second spot behind Lincoln, he's got some work to do. Look out George Washington!

Does he believe his own hype, just that out of touch with reality, or just loves to lie? You decide.

[Lost Soal]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

[Khaat]

Does he believe his own hype, just that out of touch with reality, or just loves to lie? You decide.

Just to ninja Thanas, "Why not all three?"

[TheFeniX]

Trump just spent an entire primary and presidential campaign saying the most vile shit and he came out on top twice, though barely in the later. This is ignoring how out of touch he's been with reality before-hand.

It would be weirder if he actually was restrained and grounded, because he has zero practical reason to be.

It's like when people are surprised <random child celebrity> is a total hand-job of a human being outside their public persona. What did you expect?

Unfortunately, though I can't be certain of the reason but I did expect this, Trump seems to be taking his frustration of stalled talks on his wall and healthcare poorly. He's likely to just be lashing out and twitter is setup as the perfect outlet for people with no self-restraint.

I don't know whether to say "Web 2.0 was a mistake" or be glad we get a near flawless view into the rantings of a.... person like Trump. You don't need a FOIA request to see Trump's bullshit, just give him a cell-phone with an Internet connection because he'll be bragging about it soon enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

On the one hand, can you blame him (the Chief of Staff I mean- you can blame Trump for everything)?

On the other hand, open hostility between the armed forces and their civilian oversight is not a healthy thing for a democracy in the long run.

[Iroscato]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

The Chief of Staff didn't say that - Professor Wolff did, unless I'm dramatically misreading the article.

[Highlord Laan]

Brenner-Beck said its even legally questionable whether a declaration from the president’s personal social media account is enough to launch the process of rewriting Pentagon regulations, calling it “a whole new frontier."

“A tweet doesn’t really give you policy,” she said. “How do you implement a tweet? Usually you would have some kind of an actual policy document that comes down.”

This assumes that the hooting orange chimpanzee flinging shit from a podium actually knows how to fucking write.

[Highlord Laan]

Well, the subhuman motherfuckers are pushing their "Skinny" repeal of the ACA. They'll get to keep their health care, of course. Can't have our precious elected officials forced to pay the same rates as we mere plebs.

And people act all shocked and appalled when I say that the entire lot of them should have been purged decades ago.

[Lost Soal]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

The Chief of Staff didn't say that - Professor Wolff did, unless I'm dramatically misreading the article.

Yes, I managed to see the wrong name there, somehow. Fuck my eyes.

[Gandalf]

Heh. Apparently the Obamacare repeal failed.

McCain voted no, making it 49-51.

[Crazedwraith]

Only Yahoo news so take with a pinch of salt but:

Trump administration reportedly threatens Alaska over senator’s health care vote

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, confirmed Thursday that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke contacted her after her vote against a health care bill earlier this week. The conversation reportedly involved threats of administrative retribution against her home state.

A Murkowski spokesperson told Yahoo News that the moderate Alaska lawmaker received a call from Zinke on Wednesday, and he “told her that the president wasn’t pleased with the vote that she took.”

Trump also expressed those feelings publicly Wednesday, when he tweeted that Murkowski “really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday” when she voted against moving to begin debate in the Senate on a series of health care bills.

But Zinke reportedly went beyond those sentiments, the Alaska Dispatch News reported Thursday morning. Alaska’s other GOP senator, Dan Sullivan, told the Dispatch News that the interior secretary had “a troubling message” and that he threatened to curb department projects in Alaska over the matter.

“I tried to push back on behalf of all Alaskans. … We’re facing some difficult times and there’s a lot of enthusiasm for the policies that Secretary Zinke and the president have been talking about with regard to our economy. But the message was pretty clear,” Sullivan told Alaska’s biggest newspaper, saying both he and Murkowski were contacted.

The appointments of Alaskans to top interior posts, as well as infrastructure projects and expanded drilling in the state’s National Petroleum Reserve, are potentially on the line, according to Dispatch News.

“I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

In a statement to Yahoo News, Murkowski’s office said both she and the president “agree the status quo with health care in our country is not acceptable.”

“I pledged early on that I would work with the President to help advance Alaska’s interests. I will continue to do that — to help build and strengthen our economy, keep the promises made to us as a state, and ensure access to healthcare,” Murkowski said in the statement.

For her part, Murkowski appeared unfazed by Trump’s tweet on Wednesday and maintained that she would act in the best interests of Alaska, which could be hit hard by any health care reform.

“We’re here to govern. We’re here to legislate. We’re here to represent the people who sent us here. And so every day shouldn’t be about campaigning. Every day shouldn’t be about winning elections. How about just doing a little bit of governing around here? That’s what I’m here for,” Murkowski said Wednesday.

Murkowski is not without leverage in the dispute. As the chair of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Murkowski will be able to control nomination hearings for Interior Department posts. A meeting to confirm a series of appointments to Zinke’s department was postponed Thursday, the committee announced. A spokesperson claimed that the delay was due to scheduling uncertainty.

And Murkowski is also the chair of an appropriations subcommittee centered on the Interior Department.

Concerns have also been raised that Zinke’s actions could prompt a review from the department’s inspector general. At least one Democratic congressman said that he would request an investigation into Zinke’s potential threats.

“Running a department of the federal government means you serve the American people as a protector of their rights and freedoms,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. “It doesn’t mean you serve the president as a bagman for his political vendettas.”

The Interior Department did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Real classy, Trump. Apparently blackmailing states to vote his way.

[Simon_Jester]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

On the one hand, can you blame him (the Chief of Staff I mean- you can blame Trump for everything)?

On the other hand, open hostility between the armed forces and their civilian oversight is not a healthy thing for a democracy in the long run.

When the civilian oversight in question is this much of a complete and utter dumpster fire, I'm... not entirely sure about that. Having the armed forces say "we will conduct ourselves sanely and professionally no matter what this bozo you elected and saddled us with says" can be more reassuring than the alternative of imagining the armed forces totally subject to the will of the crazed bozo.

I mean, for me, it's kind of good to reflect that if senior Army brass aren't going to fire six thousand transgender soldiers just because Trump says so, they're a lot less likely to start rounding up dissidents and shooting protestors on his say-so, either.

[Also, that's a lot of transgender soldiers, more than I would have expected to exist given the overall size of the military, although I suppose 0.3% or so of the total population of military personnel isn't that much higher than I thought, given that the military skews young and less likely to be utterly closeted about gender identity issues]

[Simon_Jester]

GHETTO EDIT:

Heh. Apparently the Obamacare repeal failed.

McCain voted no, making it 49-51.

It is very gratifying to see McCain actually, for once, living up to that seldom-earned reputation as a 'maverick, reasonable' Republican politician who has enough of a damn spine to stand up to the party orthodoxy. Because the doxy's orthos are a lot more obnoxious than usual...

I'm still worried about the Republicans trying again during this legislative session, but I really do appreciate/hope for the single-digit number of Republican senators who seem to actually care about the policy implications of what will happen to their constitutents if the ACA is repealed with the kind of (possibly nonexistent) 'replacement' their party is trying to get for it. While the rest of the party just hiveminds in an attempt to kill it, they are, at a bare minimum, thinking for themselves. I respect that.

[Gandalf]

You've more faith in McCain than I. I just assumed that he knew which way the tide was turning and decided to score some easy legacy points.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh. If he'd voted for the measure it would have won.

McCain may just be thinking "well, repealing the ACA is a stupid idea and I'll look better when I'm dead for not having helped do it," which seems to be what you're saying. But it's like... fuck, that's the first time I can think of in several years that McCain has done anything in line with his old reputation as a semi-independent figure willing to stand up to Republican Party establishment.

It's not actually enough to earn a reputation like that, I won't say I'm impressed or anything. But he's at least thinking "This thing that 90% or more of my party's senior politicians are supporting like lemmings rushing off a cliff? Yeah, that's dumb." It's not impressive, but it's at least normal, which is kind of refreshing for me at this point.

[Exonerate]

Murkowski and Collins also voted no but for some reason McCain gets all the credit. Never mind he was the reason it came to a vote at all in the first place. Doing better than the other Republicans perhaps, but let's not lionize him.

[Thanas]

Read it and weep.

[Civil War Man]

One thing I've heard a lot about McCain is that he's the kind of person who holds grudges, and is very slow to forget them. So with all the talk about whether he's being maverick-y or is trying to preserve his legacy or was visited last night by three spirits, here is my theory as to why he voted the way he did.

McCain wants vengeance against at least two, probably three or more, people directly involved in this whole thing. The two definite players, from what I see, would be Obama (for beating him in 2008) and Trump (for those "War heroes don't get captured" comments he made during the campaign). I can also see him having it out for McConnell and Ryan, though I'm not aware of any public events that could serve as a source for that. From that standpoint, some of his votes make a lot of sense.

First, his vote to proceed with debate. If he votes yes, and the Republicans get their act together, then Obama's signature legislation is erased. If he votes yes, and the Republicans can't pass anything, then McConnell, Ryan, and Trump are humiliated because they can't get anything done, and in a much more public fashion than if the vote to proceed to debate fails. So for him, voting yes on that vote was win-win.

So after the other two bills fail, you get to the third one, which had the highest possibility of passing, but also did the least amount of damage to the ACA and was being seen as the last stand for the ACA repeal. All of which made it not very good revenge against Obama, but great revenge against Trump/McConnell. So McCain basically led on McConnell, let him think that he was likely going to vote yes, causing Pence to show up in anticipation of casting the tie-breaking vote, then told McConnell and Pence to let Trump know that the Lannisters send their regards and shanked them in the back. By being the third Republican no vote, he tipped it from passing to failing. By waiting until the last minute he made it the most public possible embarrassment for Trump and the Republican leadership. By doing it so publicly, he was able to make sure everyone knew that he had done it.

[Flagg]

I'm pretty sure John "Crashy" McCain voted the way he did because he knows that the people who will be wiping his ass for him as he dies a slow cancer death may not be as quick to do so if one of his last votes was to take away healthcare for millions. He certainly shouldn't receive praise for doing the right thing at the very last minute. The sooner he exits the Senate (and then Earth) the better. I mean this is the shithead that gave us Palin, so fuck him.

[Dominus Atheos]

Reince Priebus is out.

President Donald Trump on Friday removed his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and tapped Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for the job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic ... ly-n787656