Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[FaxModem1]

The Washington Post

Trump pushing for major crackdown on homeless camps in California, with aides discussing moving residents to government-backed facilities

People walk by homeless people in San Francisco on Aug. 23, 2018. (Mason Trinca for The Washington Post)
By Jeff Stein ,
Tracy Jan ,
Josh Dawsey and
Ashley ParkerSeptember 10 at 5:06 PM
President Trump has ordered White House officials to conduct a sweeping crackdown on homelessness in California, citing the state’s growing crisis, according to four government officials aware of the effort.

The planning has intensified in recent weeks. Administration officials have discussed using the federal government to get homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and other cities and into new government-backed facilities, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

But it is unclear how they could accomplish this and what legal authority they would use. It is also unclear whether the state’s Democratic politicians would cooperate with Trump, who has sought to embarrass them over the homelessness crisis with repeated attacks on their competency.

Trump’s directive is part of his broader effort to target California and a number of major U.S. cities in recent months, including Baltimore and Chicago. He has complained about what he says are years of failed Democratic leadership that have led to sustained poverty and crime.


Top officials representing the White House and Department of Housing and Urban Development arrived in California this week for a round of meetings. A particular focus has been the “skid row” section of Los Angeles, officials said. The president is directly involved with the initiative, officials said, and has asked for updates.

Among the ideas under consideration is razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities, or refurbishing existing government facilities, two officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents.

The talks are fluid and concrete plans had not been reached.

ADVERTISING

Trump repeatedly assailed Democratic politicians in California over the state’s growing homelessness issue, which he has called a “disgrace to our country.” He has also criticized liberal-led cities such as Baltimore as “rat and rodent infested.”


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaking of failing badly, has anyone seen what is happening to Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. It is not even recognizeable lately. Something must be done before it is too late. The Dems should stop wasting time on the Witch Hunt Hoax and start focusing on our Country!

127K
6:39 AM - Jul 28, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
55.5K people are talking about this
Planning also involves officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. An administration official cited the need to act based on “rampant diseases” as well as sewage problems.

A White House spokesman said Trump signed an executive order in June that pertained to affordable housing regulations, and that the administration is continuing to seek new solutions for homelessness. Trump’s executive order created a new White House council on eliminating “regulatory barriers” that White House officials believe increase the cost of building new housing. Developers have said these restrictions drive up prices on housing and limit the supply.


“Like many Americans, the President has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies . are combining to dramatically increase poverty and public health risks,” said Judd Deere, the White House spokesman. “President Trump has directed his team to go further and develop a range of policy options for consideration to deal with this tragedy.”

Housing experts say homelessness in California has risen alongside housing and rental prices. That problem has been exacerbated by cuts to federal support in grants for housing programs.

One Democratic congressman, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), criticized Trump’s push, saying “yet again this is bravado for Trump’s base with no interest in the actual policy experts’ recommendations to solve an issue.”

Breelyn Pete, an aide to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, told Politico that a “very large delegation” of Trump administration officials is in town to meet with the mayor’s office over the homelessness issue this week. Neither Pete nor the mayor’s office responded to requests for comment.


Trump previously hinted at potential unilateral federal action over homelessness, telling Fox News that he was “very seriously” considering acting on the issue.

“You take a look at what’s going on with San Francisco, it’s terrible. So we’re looking at it very seriously. We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate,” Trump told Tucker Carlson in July. “Now, we have to take the people and do something. We have to do something.”

and resolve and comfort
Recovery workers searched for bodies Sept. 9 in areas devastated by Hurricane Dorian in Marsh Harbour, Bahamas. (Video: Zoeann Murphy, Whitney Shefte/Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)
California’s homelessness crisis has intensified. The number of families either sleeping on the streets or considered “under-housed” has “skyrocketed” for most major California cities, climbing by at least 25 percent over the past several years, said David Garcia, policy director at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Generally speaking, all the major cities have seen incredible increases. It’s a crisis,” Garcia said.

[Should people have a right to sleep on city streets? Texas joins national battle over urban homeless crisis.]

But the Trump administration may have already taken actions that have exacerbated the problem, critics allege, such as tightening immigrants’ eligibility for federal assistance, which risks putting more families on the streets, Garcia added.

California also lacks a “right to shelter” law that in other states gives homeless people temporary shelters, meaning a large percentage of California’s homeless population ends up sleeping on the street or in their vehicles, according to Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a nonprofit group.

Complicating matters, California has enacted a number of restrictive zoning laws that drive up the cost of housing by constraining the state’s supply, she said, although some state lawmakers are pushing to relax those limits.

“Skid Row” holds about 5,000 homeless people, an 11 percent increase from last year, according to statistics published in September by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

"Homelessness in California is absolutely a crisis that demands action from the federal, state and local level,” Yentel said, “but it’s hard to imagine the Trump administration is acting in good faith to solve it when they have made so many efforts in the last two years to worsen the crisis.”

The White House this year proposed cutting the HUD budget by 20 percent, eliminating the programs that build and preserve homes for the lowest-income people, Yentel said. It has also proposed cutting federal rental assistance for a quarter of a million families as well as evicting 55,000 children from subsidized housing.

Trump’s directive comes amid his feud with California politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents San Francisco.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaking of failing badly, has anyone seen what is happening to Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. It is not even recognizeable lately. Something must be done before it is too late. The Dems should stop wasting time on the Witch Hunt Hoax and start focusing on our Country!

127K
6:39 AM - Jul 28, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
55.5K people are talking about this
Trump called California a “disgrace to our country” at a rally earlier this year, and has fought with the state’s Democratic lawmakers over a number of issues ranging from homelessness to protections for immigrants.

At a rally this year, he said: “What they are doing to our beautiful California is a disgrace to our country. It’s a shame."

So, remember the Sanctuary Districts from DS9? Looks like Trump thinks of that as a good idea.

[FaxModem1]

Time

Trump Administration Officially Revokes Obama-Era Clean Water Protections
Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), delivers remarks on America's environmental leadership during an event with U.S. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, July 8, 2019. The Trump administration plans to revoke an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams.
Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), delivers remarks on "America's environmental leadership" during an event with U.S. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, July 8, 2019. The Trump administration plans to revoke an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams. Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images
BY JOHN FLESHER / AP UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 4:52 PM ET
(TRAVERSE CITY, Mich.) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked an Obama-era regulation that shielded many U.S. wetlands and streams from pollution but was opposed by developers and farmers who said it hurt economic development and infringed on property rights.

Environmental groups criticized the administration’s action, the latest in a series of moves to roll back environmental protections put into place under President Barack Obama.

The 2015 Waters of the United States rule defined the waterways subject to federal regulation. Scrapping it “puts an end to an egregious power grab, eliminates an ongoing patchwork of clean water regulations and restores a longstanding and familiar regulatory framework,” Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler said at a news conference.

Wheeler and R.D. James, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, signed the repeal document.


The Brief Newsletter
Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample
SIGN UP NOW
Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the federal government has gone beyond protection of navigable waterways and their major tributaries to assert jurisdiction over “isolated ponds and channels that only flow after it rains,” Wheeler said.

“As the scope expands, so too has Washington’s power over private property and the states’ traditional authority to regulate their land and water resources,” he said.

President Donald Trump had ordered the agencies to develop a replacement policy that has a more restrictive definition of protected wetlands and streams, leaving fewer subject to federal protection.

Environmentalists say the move would leave millions of Americans with less safe drinking water and allow damage of wetlands that prevent flooding, filter pollutants and provide habitat for a multitude of fish, waterfowl and other wildlife.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the administration’s action would be challenged in court.

“The Clean Water Rule represented solid science and smart public policy,” the group said in a statement. “Where it has been enforced, it has protected important waterways and wetlands, providing certainty to all stakeholders.”

But Don Parrish, congressional relations director for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the 2015 regulation that extended federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and waterways created uncertainty about where farmers could cultivate land.

“It would be great if farmers didn’t have to hire an army of consultants and lawyers just to be able to farm,” he said.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said the Obama rule was “an unconstitutional power grab that did nothing to advance good water management.”

The question of which waters are covered under the Clean Water Act has inspired decades of lawsuits and congressional debate.

A sharply divided Supreme Court in 2006 produced three differing opinions, leading the Obama administration to craft its rule. It provided federal oversight to upstream tributaries and headwaters, including wetlands, ponds, lakes and streams that can affect the quality of navigable waters.

The regulation drew quick legal challenges. Courts prevented it from taking effect in parts of the U.S.

Betsy Southerland, who was director of science and technology in EPA’s Office of Water during the Obama administration, said repealing its regulation would create further regulatory confusion.

“This repeal is a victory for land developers, oil and gas drillers and miners who will exploit that ambiguity to dredge and fill small streams and wetlands that were protected from destruction by the 2015 rule because of their critical impact on national water quality,” Southerland said.

You know, people used to complain that Captain Planet was too unrealistic when it's villains. We're now ruled by one and his utter disregard for the planet.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The Washington Post

Trump pushing for major crackdown on homeless camps in California, with aides discussing moving residents to government-backed facilities

People walk by homeless people in San Francisco on Aug. 23, 2018. (Mason Trinca for The Washington Post)
By Jeff Stein ,
Tracy Jan ,
Josh Dawsey and
Ashley ParkerSeptember 10 at 5:06 PM
President Trump has ordered White House officials to conduct a sweeping crackdown on homelessness in California, citing the state’s growing crisis, according to four government officials aware of the effort.

The planning has intensified in recent weeks. Administration officials have discussed using the federal government to get homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and other cities and into new government-backed facilities, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

But it is unclear how they could accomplish this and what legal authority they would use. It is also unclear whether the state’s Democratic politicians would cooperate with Trump, who has sought to embarrass them over the homelessness crisis with repeated attacks on their competency.

Trump’s directive is part of his broader effort to target California and a number of major U.S. cities in recent months, including Baltimore and Chicago. He has complained about what he says are years of failed Democratic leadership that have led to sustained poverty and crime.


Top officials representing the White House and Department of Housing and Urban Development arrived in California this week for a round of meetings. A particular focus has been the “skid row” section of Los Angeles, officials said. The president is directly involved with the initiative, officials said, and has asked for updates.

Among the ideas under consideration is razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities, or refurbishing existing government facilities, two officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents.

The talks are fluid and concrete plans had not been reached.

ADVERTISING

Trump repeatedly assailed Democratic politicians in California over the state’s growing homelessness issue, which he has called a “disgrace to our country.” He has also criticized liberal-led cities such as Baltimore as “rat and rodent infested.”


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaking of failing badly, has anyone seen what is happening to Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. It is not even recognizeable lately. Something must be done before it is too late. The Dems should stop wasting time on the Witch Hunt Hoax and start focusing on our Country!

127K
6:39 AM - Jul 28, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
55.5K people are talking about this
Planning also involves officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. An administration official cited the need to act based on “rampant diseases” as well as sewage problems.

A White House spokesman said Trump signed an executive order in June that pertained to affordable housing regulations, and that the administration is continuing to seek new solutions for homelessness. Trump’s executive order created a new White House council on eliminating “regulatory barriers” that White House officials believe increase the cost of building new housing. Developers have said these restrictions drive up prices on housing and limit the supply.


“Like many Americans, the President has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies . are combining to dramatically increase poverty and public health risks,” said Judd Deere, the White House spokesman. “President Trump has directed his team to go further and develop a range of policy options for consideration to deal with this tragedy.”

Housing experts say homelessness in California has risen alongside housing and rental prices. That problem has been exacerbated by cuts to federal support in grants for housing programs.

One Democratic congressman, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), criticized Trump’s push, saying “yet again this is bravado for Trump’s base with no interest in the actual policy experts’ recommendations to solve an issue.”

Breelyn Pete, an aide to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, told Politico that a “very large delegation” of Trump administration officials is in town to meet with the mayor’s office over the homelessness issue this week. Neither Pete nor the mayor’s office responded to requests for comment.


Trump previously hinted at potential unilateral federal action over homelessness, telling Fox News that he was “very seriously” considering acting on the issue.

“You take a look at what’s going on with San Francisco, it’s terrible. So we’re looking at it very seriously. We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate,” Trump told Tucker Carlson in July. “Now, we have to take the people and do something. We have to do something.”

and resolve and comfort
Recovery workers searched for bodies Sept. 9 in areas devastated by Hurricane Dorian in Marsh Harbour, Bahamas. (Video: Zoeann Murphy, Whitney Shefte/Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)
California’s homelessness crisis has intensified. The number of families either sleeping on the streets or considered “under-housed” has “skyrocketed” for most major California cities, climbing by at least 25 percent over the past several years, said David Garcia, policy director at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Generally speaking, all the major cities have seen incredible increases. It’s a crisis,” Garcia said.

[Should people have a right to sleep on city streets? Texas joins national battle over urban homeless crisis.]

But the Trump administration may have already taken actions that have exacerbated the problem, critics allege, such as tightening immigrants’ eligibility for federal assistance, which risks putting more families on the streets, Garcia added.

California also lacks a “right to shelter” law that in other states gives homeless people temporary shelters, meaning a large percentage of California’s homeless population ends up sleeping on the street or in their vehicles, according to Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a nonprofit group.

Complicating matters, California has enacted a number of restrictive zoning laws that drive up the cost of housing by constraining the state’s supply, she said, although some state lawmakers are pushing to relax those limits.

“Skid Row” holds about 5,000 homeless people, an 11 percent increase from last year, according to statistics published in September by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

"Homelessness in California is absolutely a crisis that demands action from the federal, state and local level,” Yentel said, “but it’s hard to imagine the Trump administration is acting in good faith to solve it when they have made so many efforts in the last two years to worsen the crisis.”

The White House this year proposed cutting the HUD budget by 20 percent, eliminating the programs that build and preserve homes for the lowest-income people, Yentel said. It has also proposed cutting federal rental assistance for a quarter of a million families as well as evicting 55,000 children from subsidized housing.

Trump’s directive comes amid his feud with California politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents San Francisco.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaking of failing badly, has anyone seen what is happening to Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. It is not even recognizeable lately. Something must be done before it is too late. The Dems should stop wasting time on the Witch Hunt Hoax and start focusing on our Country!

127K
6:39 AM - Jul 28, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
55.5K people are talking about this
Trump called California a “disgrace to our country” at a rally earlier this year, and has fought with the state’s Democratic lawmakers over a number of issues ranging from homelessness to protections for immigrants.

At a rally this year, he said: “What they are doing to our beautiful California is a disgrace to our country. It’s a shame."

So, remember the Sanctuary Districts from DS9? Looks like Trump thinks of that as a good idea.

I guess he never saw the second part of Past Tense then...

[The Romulan Republic]

Senate has shot down Trump's "state of emergency" declaration on the border, by which he has tried to do an end-run around Congress's Constitutionally-granted power of the purse and pilfer money from military construction projects to fund his racist vanity project.

Official House Democrats statement:

https://speaker.gov/newsroom/92519-0

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, and House Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz released the following statement today after the Senate voted to terminate President Trump’s national emergency declaration and save critical military construction projects:

“The Senate’s bipartisan vote today to terminate President Trump’s fake national emergency is an important step to saving the $3.6 billion of military construction projects in the United States and abroad that President Trump has canceled to pay for his border wall.

“These 127 projects are critical to protecting our national security and improving the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families. President Trump’s cancelation of these projects makes America less safe, disrespects military families, and dishonors the Constitution.

“Congressional Democrats have been clear: We will not give the President a blank check by backfilling the military construction projects he has canceled to pay for the border wall. The House’s appropriations bills clearly rule out backfilling. Efforts to instruct NDAA conferees to endorse backfilling are a political stunt to protect Republicans whose states and districts are hurt by the President’s abuse of power.

“The only way to ensure that critical military construction funding is used for its intended purposes is for Republicans to join us and vote to terminate the President’s fake national emergency.”

11 Republicans broke with the party line to vote it down. Sadly, that's not enough for a veto-proof majority, but maybe an indication that Trump and Moscow Mitch's Red Wall in the Senate is starting to crack.

[FaxModem1]

Newsweek

DONALD TRUMP'S TRADE WAR TARIFFS REDUCED EMPLOYMENT AT U.S. FACTORIES AND HIKED PRICES, FEDERAL RESERVE STUDY FINDS
BY BRENDAN COLE ON 12/28/19 AT 8:27 AM EST
00:37
Watch: Pelosi Announces Revised USMCA Trade Agreement
SHARE
U.S.
TRADE WAR
DONALD TRUMP
TARIFFS
CHINA
Import tariffs introduced by President Donald Trump aimed at protecting American manufacturers have actually caused job losses and higher prices for consumers, according to a study published by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

In March 2018, the Trump administration introduced steel and aluminum tariffs to counter what the president described as "aggressive foreign trade practices."

The president also took aim at Chinese goods as he started a trade war with Beijing that may be soon eased with a preliminary trade deal.

However, Federal Reserve economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce concluded that any gains made by the tariffs in reducing competition for some U.S. domestic industries were cancelled out by rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs.

Xi Jinping and Donald Trump
China's President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with US President Donald Trump before a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Osaka.The trade war Trump has waged with China has cut jobs and increased U.S. prices, according to a new study.
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/GETTY IMAGES
"We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices," the study said.

The study also stated how the "globally interconnected supply chains" meant that there are limits to how much trade policy like tariffs can even protect domestic industries, especially as it usually means a "tit-for-tat retaliation."

"We find the impact from the traditional import protection channel is completely offset in the short-run by reduced competitiveness from retaliation and higher costs in downstream industries."

Nearly 50% of Americans Think U.S. Is Worse Off Today Than a Year Ago: PollREAD MORE

Industries hit by foreign retaliatory tariffs included those who produced magnetic and optical media, leather goods, aluminum sheet, iron and steel, cars and household appliances.

Meanwhile, American consumers had to pay more for a number of products which included boilers, architectural metals, transportation equipment and general purpose machinery.

"While the longer-term effects of the tariffs may differ from those that we estimate here, the results indicate that the tariffs, thus far, have not led to increased activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector," the study concluded.

Market Watch noted that the study did not take into account business confidence from the uncertainty caused by the tariffs which it said is the main reason why there has been a decrease in business investment in the U.S.

Lydia DePillis from ProPublica tweeted to her 21,000 followers that the study proves that that the "trade war is hurting the sector it was ostensibly supposed to help."

Meanwhile, figures released in September showed that since the start of the trade war with China in February 2018, American consumers and businesses had paid an extra $38 billion, according to the lobby group Tariffs Hurt the Heartland.

Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment.

In related news, officials in Beijing and Washington have hailed a preliminary trade deal which would give China relief from some tariffs in return for it increasing its purchases of American farm exports.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Orange Thing used his State of the Union address to give Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Apparently a number of Democrats walked out during the speech, and Pelosi was caught on camera tearing the speech up as Trump was preparing to leave.

[TimothyC]

So, Orange Thing used his State of the Union address to give Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yep, 'Cause it looks like he's dying.

And, Personally, I think he falls into the category "especially meritorious contribution to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

At least as much as Mrs. DeGeneres did when she got hers four years ago.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Orange Thing used his State of the Union address to give Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yep, 'Cause it looks like he's dying.

With all due respect, there are many dying people who are far more deserving and don't get Presidential medals of honour. Its never been the practice to give such an honour to someone just because they're dying, or even because they're famous (or infamous) and dying.

Where are the medals of honour for the thousands of people dying from lack of adequate health care every year, who laid down their lives for the profits of the insurance companies? Or the thousands who died in preventable gun violence, who gave their lives for the right to bear arms?

And, Personally, I think he falls into the category "especially meritorious contribution to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

Frankly? This says some not very nice things about what you consider to be of value to society.

Yes, I'm sure the man who once praised the Lord's Resistance Army made an "especially meritorious contribution...":

https://theatlantic.com/international/a ... gh/246894/

At least as much as Mrs. DeGeneres did when she got hers four years ago.

"Hah-Hah, stupid Left-wing celebrity got one, so a genocidal Right-wing celebrity is okay too! Both Sides are just as bad!"

[Gandalf]

And, Personally, I think he falls into the category "especially meritorious contribution to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

At least as much as Mrs. DeGeneres did when she got hers four years ago.

What do you "personally" find to be meritorious about his contributions to culture? I wager we both know Limbaugh's Greatest Hits.

Where are the medals of honour for the thousands of people dying from lack of adequate health care every year, who laid down their lives for the profits of the insurance companies? Or the thousands who died in preventable gun violence, who gave their lives for the right to bear arms?

Perhaps Republicans will start thanking them for their service.

[TimothyC]

With all due respect, there are many dying people who are far more deserving and don't get Presidential medals of honour. Its never been the practice to give such an honour to someone just because they're dying, or even because they're famous (or infamous) and dying.

That's just like, your opinion man. And spell the name of the award right if you can. You wouldn't purposefully misspell Légion d'honneur would you?

Also Pres. Obama gave out something like 20 of them posthumously while Trump has given out three of them posthumously (Justice Scalia, Elvis, and Babe Ruth). Personally I think these are stupid, but whatever.

Frankly? This says some not very nice things about what you consider to be of value to society.

What do you "personally" find to be meritorious about his contributions to culture?

For good or ill, the popularization of national talk radio, and specifically conservative talk radio. It may not be liked around here, but it did have a significant impact on American cultural discourse over the last 30+ years.

"Hah-Hah, stupid Left-wing celebrity got one, so a genocidal Right-wing celebrity is okay too! Both Sides are just as bad!"

So Mrs. DeGeneres shouldn't have gotten it? How about Lorne Michaels? Heck, how about Frank Gehry? His work is crap, and he still got one.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom has turned into an dumb award for famous people for being famous. Both sides are guilty of that. Get off your high horse before you fall off again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah yeah, Trump gave it to someone who praised crimes against humanity, the Democrats gave it to some celebrities, so Both Sides Are Just As Bad. Keep throwing out random names to try to muddy the waters and deflect from the fact that Trump's giving it to a propagandist for war crimes. This is just bog-standard Whataboutism (with a bit of ad hominem tacked on at the end).

[Gandalf]

What do you "personally" find to be meritorious about his contributions to culture?

For good or ill, the popularization of national talk radio, and specifically conservative talk radio. It may not be liked around here, but it did have a significant impact on American cultural discourse over the last 30+ years.

So the racism, sexism, and such that were a key part of that impact aren't a disqualifier?

[TimothyC]

So the racism, sexism, and such that were a key part of that impact aren't a disqualifier?

'Handsy' Joe Biden.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So, Orange Thing used his State of the Union address to give Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yep, 'Cause it looks like he's dying.

Lung Cancer, the sheer irony being this is the same man who denied the health risks of smoking five years ago.

[Gandalf]

So the racism, sexism, and such that were a key part of that impact aren't a disqualifier?

'Handsy' Joe Biden.

So for you personally, using racist and sexist rhetoric to make a significant cultural impact doesn't present a problem. Good to know.

[TimothyC]

So for you personally, using racist and sexist rhetoric to make a significant cultural impact doesn't present a problem. Good to know.

In the event that you didn't understand what I was saying, VP. Biden was given this same award three years ago. The American left doesn't get to bitch about this one if they didn't bitch about his.

In short, sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik.

[Gandalf]

In the event that you didn't understand what I was saying, VP. Biden was given this same award three years ago. The American left doesn't get to bitch about this one if they didn't bitch about his.

In short, sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik.

I'm not talking about the "American left," I'm talking about you. You used the qualifier "personally" in your first post on this topic classifying Limbaugh's contributions as "especially meritorious." So I ask again, what is meritorious here, considering racist and sexist rhetoric was what made him such a part of the broadcast landscape?

Or is this one of those "party loyalty" things?

[TimothyC]

In the event that you didn't understand what I was saying, VP. Biden was given this same award three years ago. The American left doesn't get to bitch about this one if they didn't bitch about his.

In short, sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik.

I'm not talking about the "American left," I'm talking about you. You used the qualifier "personally" in your first post on this topic classifying Limbaugh's contributions as "especially meritorious." So I ask again, what is meritorious here, considering racist and sexist rhetoric was what made him such a part of the broadcast landscape?

Or is this one of those "party loyalty" things?

It's like I'm talking to the broccoli.

As opposed to the other two categories for which it is given:

"SEC. 2. Award of the Medal. (a) The Medal may be awarded by the President as provided in this order to any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

[Rogue 9]

The "retribution" is starting. Trump has fired both Lt. Colonal Vindman and Ambassador Sondland today. NPR

Vindman, Sondland Removed As Trump Purges Impeachment Witnesses

February 7, 20203:58 PM ET

Roberta Rampton, Amita Kelly

Two key impeachment witnesses — Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — were recalled by President Trump Friday afternoon.

Vindman, the Ukraine expert at the National Security Council who became a star witness in the House impeachment hearings on President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, was "escorted" out of the White House on Friday, his lawyer said, adding Trump had "decided to exact revenge."

Sondland, who has served as United States ambassador to the European Union, said in a statement Friday that he was "advised today that the President intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union."

"I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve, to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support, and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union," Sondland wrote. "I am proud of our accomplishments. Our work here has been the highlight of my career."

David Pressman of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Vindman's lawyer, said in a statement:"There is no question in the mind of any American why this man's job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth,"

Pressman said Vindman's twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman was also fired from the National Security Council on Friday.

The Vindman brothers have been reassigned to the Department of Army, a department spokesperson confirmed. The department would not provide further information.

In a searing statement, Alexander Vindman's lawyer said the "truth" had "cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy. He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril. And for that, the most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge."

The White House and National Security Council were not immediately available for comment.

Earlier on Friday, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Vindman would be leaving. "I'm not happy with him. You think I'm supposed to be happy with him? I'm not. They'll make that decision. You'll be hearing," Trump said.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee called on Congress to condemn Trump's actions.

"Those who suggested President Trump's behavior would improve following his impeachment have been proven wrong," Menendez said in a statement. "I sincerely hope that all members of Congress condemn this latest reprehensible, yet sadly predictable conduct by President Trump."

Here's the full statement from Alexander Vindman's lawyer David Pressman:

Today, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House where he has dutifully served his country and his President. He does so having spoken publicly once, and only pursuant to a subpoena from the United States Congress.

There is no question in the mind of any American why this man's job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.

During his decades of service to this country, LTC Alexander Vindman has served quietly but dutifully, and he has served with honor. He came into the public eye only when subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and he did what the law demanded.In recent months, many entrusted with power in our political system have cowered out of fear. And, yet, a handful of men and women, not endowed with prestige or power, but equipped only with a sense of right borne out of years of quiet service to their country made different choices.

They courageously chose to honor their duty with integrity, to trust the truth, and to put their faith in country ahead of fear. And they have paid a price.The truth has cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy.

He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril. And for that, the most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge.

LTC Alexander Vindman leaves the White House today. But we must not accept the departure of truth, duty, and loyalty that he represents. In this country right matters, and so does truth. Truth is not partisan. If we allow truthful voices to be silenced, if we ignore their warnings, eventually there will be no one left to warn us.

Tom Bowman contributed to this report.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another political purge punishing patriotic career public servants for not breaking the law on Trump's behalf.

The US is a dictatorship. Not might become one. Not is in danger of becoming one. Is. Now.

The one piece of good news is that history has shown that all despots eventually fall. The only questions are when, how, and how many people die before it happens.

[Enigma]

Another political purge punishing patriotic career public servants for not breaking the law on Trump's behalf.

The US is a dictatorship. Not might become one. Not is in danger of becoming one. Is. Now.

The one piece of good news is that history has shown that all despots eventually fall. The only questions are when, how, and how many people die before it happens.

Whatever drugs you're on, please share with the rest of us.

Trump's a raving loon but he's no dictator and there won't be people dying just to get rid of him.

TRR, honestly, do you even read what you type? You're coming off as Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling. It's just a damned acorn.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another political purge punishing patriotic career public servants for not breaking the law on Trump's behalf.

The US is a dictatorship. Not might become one. Not is in danger of becoming one. Is. Now.

The one piece of good news is that history has shown that all despots eventually fall. The only questions are when, how, and how many people die before it happens.

Whatever drugs you're on, please share with the rest of us.

Trump's a raving loon but he's no dictator and there won't be people dying just to get rid of him.

TRR, honestly, do you even read what you type? You're coming off as Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling. It's just a damned acorn.

This isn't just me:

Given my experience working for Mt. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power

So, let’s review: An autocratic executive elected with a minority of the vote was just acquitted by a Senate also elected by a minority of the vote and a judiciary appointed by two presidents who, you guessed it, were elected by a minority of the vote. I think it’s safe to say the U.S. no longer qualifies as a democracy.

I believe four more years of Trump/Barr will give us a dictator... and I am not employing hyperbole!

...the impeachment process is being perverted into a process to make Trump into a dictator.

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment

(ie: everything is fair game if Trump says its in the nation's interest).

How to Stop a Civil War-title of the December 2019 issue of the Atlantic

Here are the facts:

Trump has fired numerous officials for obeying the law over personal loyalty to him.

Trump has routinely incited violence at his rallies.

Trump has locked tens of thousands of people in detention camps (I'm sure you'd scream "Chicken Little" if I called them concentration camps, even though they are facilities for the mass incarceration of vulnerable minorities where many people have died due to the atrociously inhuman conditions).

Trump has coerced a foreign government to open political investigations into his opponents, obstructed the subsequent investigation, admitted to it, had his guilt overwhelmingly proven by the House, and was acquitted regardless.

The DOJ just adopted a new policy that they will not investigate Presidential campaigns without Barr's approval- ie, one of Trump's most loyal partisans can now approve any investigation into a Democratic candidate, while blocking any investigation of Trump.


The last thing we need is people like you telling everyone that its not that bad, and ridiculing those who genuinely fear a dictatorship. That's a comforting narrative, but its also one that will effectively anesthetize the population, while Trump rams through more and more dictatorial measures. Trump already controls half of Congress, largely controls the courts, has a massive media empire behind him, has purged most of those who would stand up to or question him from his cabinet and government, and is currently using the power of his office to push show investigations of his political opponents. He has already rammed through many previously unthinkable things because people didn't take him seriously. And I dread a scenario next November where Trump, defeated and facing indictment upon leaving office, does what anyone who's been watching for the last four years knows he's going to do, declares the result fraudulent, and refuses to step down... and the vast majority of Americans sit there and do nothing, letting it happen because they can't believe that it could really be that bad. Because they've bought the comforting fiction that it could never happen here.

If I'm wrong, great. Fantastic. Best news of my life. But if I'm right, we damn well better not be blindsided by it. We need millions of Americans, ready and organized, to take the streets, block traffic, go on strike, shut the whole country down the instant Trump tries to pull that shit. We need to pressure members of Congress, candidates, and judges to publicly commit to opposing any such power grab. We need to pressure Electors to respect the popular vote, or at least the votes of their states. We need to be doing this now, not trying to piece together a response after Trump rigs the election or declares the results invalid and refuses to leave.

And before anyone says "the FBI/military would remove him"...

The FBI answers to William Barr.

The military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but they are also mostly not going to want to openly revolt against the President. And in a close election, all Trump would have to do is pressure/bribe a few Electors to vote for him instead of the winner of the vote- and according to prior court rulings, that would be entirely Constitutional and the military would therefore be obligated by their oaths to respect it.

[Eulogy]

Given that Trump is entirely willing to punish the families of soldiers for said soldiers' slights against him, real or not, I doubt the military will be all that willing to side with him for much longer, Constitutional or not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Given that Trump is entirely willing to punish the families of soldiers for said soldiers' slights against him, real or not, I doubt the military will be all that willing to side with him for much longer, Constitutional or not.

Honestly? That's the best hope the world has right now. But while the upper brass largely loathes him, there are a lot of Trumpers in the rank and file, and Trumpism is basically the psychology of a cult. It doesn't matter how many times the loyalists are abused and betrayed by the Leader- nine out of ten at least remain loyal.

Also, its a big step from disliking the PotUS to mutiny. Its something that I suspect is unthinkable for most service members. And normally, that reticence, and deference to civilian leadership, is a very, very good thing. But it will be a very bad thing in the event of a despotic, criminal president who has no meaningful legal restraints any longer, and who clearly has no qualms whatsoever about abusing the military's loyalty.

[Eulogy]

Yeah, the thing about habitually abusing and shitting on your entire military is that sooner or later the military will eventually bite back, cult in the rank and file or no.