kurtster wrote: 
Oh jeez. Been to Mexico lately?  Yes they have some issues, but they have been facing many of these for decades. A lot of these issues stem from the isolation of the poor, lack of opportunities, institutionalized corruption, ect.  
So you think that it's up to us to "fix mexico" and that we will somehow do a great job of it by building a wall, further marginalizing their people, limiting trade, insulting and threatening their leaders?  I'm sure you're a peach as a neighbor.

After 2 Weeks In Office, Trump Faces More Than 50 Lawsuits

Potential side effects of the drug Trump reportedly takes for hair loss

WTF Just Happened, Today?

Kurtster wrote:

Immigration

I, insist on the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant.  ..

I share the same belief that a country without respected borders is not a country and whatever laws are in place, they could only be considered transient and malleable based upon expediency and convenience only.  It renders the US Constitution meaningless as only the country called the USA can defend it and its worth within its borders. 

There are enough existing laws, ..yet none of them are properly and evenly applied.

 What I hope Trump will do …

Build the wall, …Once we have secured the border and are evenly enforcing the laws ...We deport on a priority basis, with number one being criminal illegal aliens.  .. They will not be released to roam the streets and continue their criminal acts.

I am compassionate towards those here who embrace this country for what it is supposed to be … Those who come here wanting to change this country for whatever reasons as a reason for being here, well no way.

Refugees ?  Sure, if they come here to join us and accept us as we are and want to be here. 

 

Ok, on this topic you are obviously afraid only about certain kinds of immigrants coming into the country, either illegally or legally but with the intent to change American values. You admit there are laws in place but feel these are not being adequately enforced to counter this threat. We could argue here about the extent of the risk or the costs and benefits of immigration policy or the way those with criminal intent should be handled but let’s just take from what you have written at least two things most people could agree on:

1.     laws of the US should be fair and consistently applied
2.     only by ensuring this can the constitution be upheld

ergo... your views on immigration are basically in defense of the constitution. Is that correct?

 

Judging Trump as a POTUS

Steeler responded to this way better than I could. I totally agree with him. I do a lot of work for large corporations. Every single one of them is big on diversity and inclusiveness because they have understood the value of D&I for its own sake and their bottom line. BTW I actually don’t think DT is a good businessman. Screwing the other side during a negotiation is what used car salesmen and property sharks do but it is not sustainable business practice. Gives you quick wins but in the long-term everyone loses.

Drain the swamp

..They are just as tired as Trump and the rest of us who voted for Trump, with the establishment and the status quo which in addition to what was mentioned above also serves up uncertainty which serves to make it hard for anything to get done and serves them in the area of keeping power and maintaining their own job security.

This also is what is meant by tearing down / destroying the government.  No, the government can and will work properly if the establishment can be knocked out of power.  .. I can say that I used tear down and destroy the government as a metaphor for draining the swamp and removing the establishment from uncontested power.  I believe in government as intended in the Constitution, with very limited powers, certain responsibilities with accountability to the people and laws of the land.

um… I am trying to identify the core values underlying this and am having difficulty. On the one hand you see the government apparatus as being too big, unchecked and thwarting people from living a free and unfettered life. Did I understand that correctly?  Government takes too much and does too little and you can’t "do anything" about it because it is entrenched and uncontested? Something like that? But, OTOH, if I understand you correctly, you are not against government per se, you just want it to be more efficient and more accountable? But what should it do? What shouldn't it do?

Kurtster, I know you put a lot of time and effort into writing that but quite frankly I am a bit disappointed as I still don't know what your core values are, the ones on which I can measure the performance of the government and, by extension, Trump. The ones I have tried to mine from your text appear to me to be contradictory. You want a smaller government doing less but more efficiently and with more accountability (yeah, well who doesn't?) but on the other hand you want government to do more (stricter application of immigration law and getting things done) and seem happy to free the current president from accountability. But isn't the whole deadweight of government thing in a large part due to the whole system of checks and balances? You might admire Trump as a sleeves-rolled-up, down-to-business kind of guy, but he is failing miserably on the accountability thing. How do you want to square this circle? You claim you want strict immigration law to defend the constitution but give me the impression that you would give Trump a pass when he overrides it, in the name of "getting things done"?  So are you truly in favour of the constitution or not? Or do you think you can apply it selectively? If the constitutional rights of a minority stand in the way of some big project, should we just ignore them in the name of tearing down the establishment? Is that what you think? 

Maybe I got you wrong. Quite likely in fact. So, hand on heart, tell me in 100 words or less, what, for you, are the underlying values that guide you as an individual and that you feel should guide the government. Think of it as Kurtster's manifesto. 

This NY Times piece has a 19-second clip of Kellyanne Conway dropping this fake news tidbit on Chris Matthews—who apparently was so exhausted from dealing with the Trump Whirlwind of Insanity that he didn't call BS on her. 

BTW—are we sure Kellyanne isn't an evil animated wooden doll...y'know, like Chucky?

Kellyanne Conway Admits ‘Bowling Green Massacre’ Error 
 

Judge issues broad block against Trump's travel ban

(...) The temporary ruling from Robart, an appointee of President George W. Bush, appeared to be the most sweeping legal rebuke to the order since Trump issued it a week ago.

"Judge Robart’s decision, effective immediately, effective now, puts a halt to President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. It puts a stop to it immediately, nationwide," Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson told reporters. “What the judge announced today was nationwide; the president’s executive order does not apply."

Ferguson said the also nullifies the impact of the order on people seeking to travel to the U.S. (...)

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Don't worry about the nukes.  Having grown up during the peak of the Cold War in a town that was a top target and with the Cuban Missile Crisis live, I can assure you that if you simply duck and cover under your desk you will be perfectly fine. 

:cuesupwalztingmatilda:

The complete list of all 33 false things Donald Trump has said as president so far
The Star’s running tally of the bald-faced lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I think his plan is to nuke them over there, so you'll be fine.

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, as you know, it's too long to reply to (RP forums choke on replies to long posts) but it'll get some reads. I, of course, think you're delusional if you're not horrified at even 10% of the last 2 weeks' worth of shenanigans, but when the nukes start to fly, being right on that count will be small comfort to me. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I won't assume for others, but the truth is bad enough for me. 
 
...well, that and vintage comic book panels. 

 aflanigan wrote: 
Isn't the truth bad enough ?  

Say what ever you want, just don't make things up and pass them off as true.

Maybe you can explain the picture. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Since when is it the duty of a citizen to act like a self-appointed spin doctor for the POTUS?

Can we criticize him if we first say nice things about him? Is that the rule, now? 

Kellyanne Conway continues to make shit up...

Happy days are here again...
The CIA’s New Deputy Director Ran a Black Site for Torture

In May, 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official – whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time – was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” – part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” – “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated both multiple court orders as well the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by Commission Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and Grand Jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

That CIA official’s name whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel. Today, as BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted, CIA Director Mike Pompeo announced that Haspel was selected by Trump to be Deputy Director of the CIA. (...)

 steeler wrote: 

Most successful politicians aren't in politics for the money. They generally don't have a fear of becoming poor from losing an election of office, they have a fear of losing political power. That fear can make them beholden to special interest groups, polls, big donors, etc. Politicians typically have an agenda that drives their choice of policy interests. They have to work within a community of fellow politicians and changing popular moods. Therefore, they have to moderate their goals or delay pushing them forward in order to build consensus. That may make them look compromised or ineffective but unless the politicians in question are cynical liars never intending to fulfill their campaign promises, they're slogging through the muck of political negotiation, horse-trading and waiting for the right moment to push their agenda.

Trump doesn't have any big political advantage by being independently wealthy. Money is vital to a campaign but it's not the crucial currency once you're in office. To get laws and policy in place in Washington, you need power that comes from alliances with fellow politicians, lobbyists representing political and business interests, and the media. Even a businessman with lots of personal wealth like Trump discovers that you get things done in politics through consensus-building, horse-trading and cooperation. Executive orders can't get everything done. Mitt Romney found out the hard way that he had to make friends with the MA legislature when he was governor.

Trump can try to burn the establishment house down, but the establishment will fight back. His lack of preparation and management skills is already biting him in the butt:

Case Study in Chaos: How Management Experts Grade a Trump White House

So it doesn’t seem premature to ask some leading management experts for an assessment of Mr. Trump’s first weeks, purely from the viewpoint of organizational behavior and management effectiveness, as I did this week.

The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.

...

Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford and the author of “Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t,” said Mr. Trump’s executive actions as president “are so far from any responsible management approach” that they all but defy analysis.

“Of course, this isn’t new,” he told me. “His campaign also violated every prudent management principle. Everyone including our friends on Wall Street somehow believed that once he was president he’d change. I don’t understand that logic.”

...

There is an enormous amount of literature and data exploring what constitutes effective management of complicated organizations. “The core principles have served many leaders really well,” said Jeffrey T. Polzer, professor of human resource management at Harvard Business School. “It’s really common sense: You want to surround yourself with talented people who have the most expertise, who bring different perspectives to the issue at hand. Then you foster debate and invite different points of view in order to reach a high-quality solution...This doesn’t mean decisions are made by consensus. The person at the top makes the decisions, but based on the facts and expertise necessary to make a good decision.”
 ...

Mr. Trump has already violated several of these core principles. The secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, was still discussing a proposed executive order restricting immigration when Mr. Trump went ahead and signed it. Nor was Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, consulted; he saw the final order only hours before it went into effect.