Trump news the third

[ordnance11]

This whole conversation right now is based on outdated information. 

 Still in the news cycle as of this morning. Note that they didn't back off on building the wall or Mexico will still pay for it. the only thing changing on a hourly basis is how.

This is going to be the new pattern, where Trump gets an idea from one of his advisors/Fox News/Twitter, and then announces it before the staff has to walk it back.  And then Sean Sphincter goes out and explains how it was a great idea and everything is going according to keikaku (keikaku means "plan"). 

Now, now. You have to feel sorry for Spicer. It's tough working for a boss who undercuts you at every step. I say he lasts at least to the mid terms and then he quits and gets a nice book deal out of it. The fallout is going to be no one trusts this administration when the time comes to really trust them on something. Like when we went into Iraq.

I almost feel sorry for congressional Republicans who want to accomplish something this year, because it looks like 45's whole plan is to keep both enemies and allies guessing.  Good luck getting anything done when no one knows the agenda in advance.

They'll get rid of the ACA. Of course when the fallout from that begins, watch them scurry. 
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Trump just signed an executive order that violates an international treaty.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26 ... cy_shield/

Is that legal?

Because if it is, I'm going to have to move my wiki out of the USA.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Trump just signed an executive order that violates an international treaty.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26 ... cy_shield/

Is that legal?

Because if it is, I'm going to have to move my wiki out of the USA.

Looking at the article Rob, there is a sub clause that states there is an exception to the executive order but it doesn't cover Mexico or Canada.

In theory, therefore – with the Judicial Redress Act law, the attorney general's designations due to become law in less than a week, and the executive order including a clear carve-out for existing law – the situation should be that the Privacy Shield agreement holds. The executive order would then only apply to countries outside the European Union – although Canada and Mexico are notably absent, which may have its own political repercussions

.    
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Trump just signed an executive order that violates an international treaty.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26 ... cy_shield/

Is that legal?

Because if it is, I'm going to have to move my wiki out of the USA.

Looking at the article Rob, there is a sub clause that states there is an exception to the executive order but it doesn't cover Mexico or Canada.

In theory, therefore – with the Judicial Redress Act law, the attorney general's designations due to become law in less than a week, and the executive order including a clear carve-out for existing law – the situation should be that the Privacy Shield agreement holds. The executive order would then only apply to countries outside the European Union – although Canada and Mexico are notably absent, which may have its own political repercussions

.
    

That makes things less urgent. (My wiki's co-admin is in the EU... but I'm not. However, Miraheze doesn't ask for more than an email address from editors.)

It's still troubling having two tiers of privacy, though.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

They'll get rid of the ACA. Of course when the fallout from that begins, watch them scurry. 

Judging from some threads I've spotted on Tumblr and Facebook, a fair number of the Republican rank-and-file apparently had no idea that "Obamacare" and the ACA were one and the same thing, and were gladly supporting the utter destruction of the first while thanking their lucky stars for the second. Watching individuals discovering that the two were the same program, and realizing that they'd voted in people who were going to demolish it, has been mixed moment of schadenfreude for me...
Of course, it's been clear recently that only the most disconnected-from-reality archconservatives among the Republicans haven't realized that they can't get rid of the ACA without a massive backlash from the voters -- hence the cry of "repeal and replace" that has become the new mantra for Congress. The big problem they now face is that the ACA was a copy of a conservative Republican heathcare program -- Romney's from Massachussetts, if I recall correctly. (The only reason it was fought so bitterly was the usual reason -- a Democrat did it, specifically the despised Obama.) The Republicans now have to come up with an even more conservative program that somehow doesn't look exactly like the ACA, and doesn't screw over more constituents than they can afford to lose -- or their heads will be on pikes in 2 and/or 4 years.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[DHBirr]

Yeah, I saw a lovely bit a week or so ago with commenters laughing at some guy who'd been rejoicing in the impending demise of "that crummy" Obamacare and proud that he was insured by the "far superior" ACA.  They poked plenty of fun at how he abruptly stopped responding to their messages when the truth sank in.... 
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[robkelk]

... The big problem they now face is that the ACA was a copy of a conservative Republican heathcare program -- Romney's from Massachussetts, if I recall correctly. ...

Sort of, if Wikipedia is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_P ... ve_history
"In 2006, an insurance expansion bill was enacted at the state level in Massachusetts. The bill contained both an individual mandate and an insurance exchange. Republican Governor Mitt Romney vetoed the mandate, but after Democrats overrode his veto, he signed it into law. ... By 2008 many Democrats were considering this approach as the basis for healthcare reform. Experts said that the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bore similarities to the 2007 bill and that it was deliberately patterned after Romney's state healthcare plan."

While Romney's name is attached to the program, he didn't like it at first.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

GOP rank and file frets about the ACA repeal
BTW, did anyone note in the news that no executive order on ethics was signed?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

I wonder why... complete ignorance and incomprehension of the topic never stopped a Trump executive order before...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Bob Schroeck]

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Bob Schroeck]

And finally a thought that struck me today as entirely too plausible: Could Trump's obsession with non-existent voter fraud and his demands for an investigation be more than just his massive insecurity talking, but also as a way to set a precedent by which he could refuse to accept the results of the next Presidential election?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[LynnInDenver]

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

And finally a thought that struck me today as entirely too plausible: Could Trump's obsession with non-existent voter fraud and his demands for an investigation be more than just his massive insecurity talking, but also as a way to set a precedent by which he could refuse to accept the results of the next Presidential election?

That, and an excuse for the Republicans to further their attempts to disenfranchise whoever they possibly can to continue to ensure we can't just shovel them out come election day.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

Changing a line I just heard on the radio:

Use "alternative-truth" maps - build that wall around the White House.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[DHBirr]

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

And finally a thought that struck me today as entirely too plausible: Could Trump's obsession with non-existent voter fraud and his demands for an investigation be more than just his massive insecurity talking, but also as a way to set a precedent by which he could refuse to accept the results of the next Presidential election?

I'm fairly sure I'd already seen this notion within the last few days, possibly as a reader's comment on a news article.  My problem with the idea is that I no longer believe Trump is sane enough to plan that far ahead.  Bannon, maybe....
Edit:  Aaaaand this just in:  White House to Royal Family:  Shut up about climate change, Prince Charles!  And Trump woulda nailed Di, if he'd tried!

Arioch help us, the man's even more vulgar than I'd thought....
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Bob Schroeck]

So... Friday one of the executive orders that Trump whipped out was a ban on allowing refugees into the country, as I'm sure most of us know. Last night, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/ ... index.html]a Federal judge granted an emergency stay on that order.
Just as an added fillip on top, apparently the entire contents of the order were completely hidden from anyone outside the Oval Office until it was signed and disseminated, and as a result of having no outside oversight or advisers, there are parts of the order which are reported to be, well, difficult to understand.  And after the DHS finally arrived at what they thought was the proper legal interpretation of the order, the White House promptly overruled them.  Meanwhile, in the wake of its surprise release, Trump reported from his personal reality that everything is working smoothly with no snarls or confusion anywhere.  People in the real world report different conditions there. At least until the judge granted the stay.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Bob Schroeck]

Does anyone/everyone remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf]"Baghdad Bob", AKA "Comical Ali"?  They say he's got a new job and a new name these days...

One to share with the friends and neighbors...
EDIT:  And another...

I have to say I'm liking the idea of "Baghdad Sean" as a meme.
And one more, unrelated to this, but relevant to this week's news:

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[RMH999]

Rearranging the National Security Council to put Stephen Bannon on it and remove both the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs positions from the council... *sigh*
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein

[LynnInDenver]

robkelk wrote:

---

ordnance11 wrote:

---

robkelk wrote:

---

Trump just signed an executive order that violates an international treaty.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26 ... cy_shield/

Is that legal?

Because if it is, I'm going to have to move my wiki out of the USA.

Looking at the article Rob, there is a sub clause that states there is an exception to the executive order but it doesn't cover Mexico or Canada.

In theory, therefore – with the Judicial Redress Act law, the attorney general's designations due to become law in less than a week, and the executive order including a clear carve-out for existing law – the situation should be that the Privacy Shield agreement holds. The executive order would then only apply to countries outside the European Union – although Canada and Mexico are notably absent, which may have its own political repercussions

.
    

That makes things less urgent. (My wiki's co-admin is in the EU... but I'm not. However, Miraheze doesn't ask for more than an email address from editors.)

It's still troubling having two tiers of privacy, though.

Rob, it might just be safest to assume that it's time to migrate the wiki... rather than wait for an emergency "have to actually close it while we find a new location so we don't get left in massive legal fiascos because someone signed a new order while I slept".
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[robkelk]

Rob, it might just be safest to assume that it's time to migrate the wiki... rather than wait for an emergency "have to actually close it while we find a new location so we don't get left in massive legal fiascos because someone signed a new order while I slept".

At the moment, the wiki is also bound by the laws of the Netherlands. I wonder whether the entire wiki farm can get moved there.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

%[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-park-service-twitter-account-operating-again/]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-pa ... ing-again/]

From that article:

“Two retweets from the National Park Service’s (NPS) main Twitter account Friday were inconsistent with the agency’s approach to engaging the public through social media,” Tom Crosson, National Park Service spokesman, said in a statement to CBS News’ Arden Farhi. “Out of an abundance of caution, while we investigated the situation involving these tweets, the Department of Interior’s communications team determined that it was important to stand down Twitter activity across the Department temporarily, except in the case of public safety.”

Translation:  "We now have a minder to keep us from posting anything that the White House does not approve of."

And now there's an unofficial Twitter account. "Can't wait for President Trump to call us FAKE NEWS. You can take our official twitter, but you'll never take our free time!"

Article here (hosted outside the USA): %[link=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/25/trump_taken_on_by_park_rangers/]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/25 ... k_rangers/]

A personal comment: What took the Canadian Conservatives months to do after being elected - stifling the voices of government employees - Trump has done in hours. If the pattern holds, the next step will be to divest government reference libraries of their scholarly peer-reviewed references that don't agree with the party line. Stand vigilant and exercise your First Amendment rights, or you'll go down the same path we did (and are still trying to recover from, over a year after voting the Conservatives out).

Further to this:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... unterparts]You stood by us and helped when we went through a similar situation last decade. We are ready to stand by you and help now.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

So where are the folks who voted for him? Shouldn't they be defending Trump's actions?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Skyfire2020]

Going by the UK coverage there are at least 4 different versions of the immigration ban and that is ignoring numerous contradictory newspaper reports

1.There is the ban Trump announced.
2.There is the ban Trump actually intended.
3.There is the ban currently being acted on by airports (and who knows how many different rules are being used at different airports in the same country, let alone at different countries).
4.There is the ban after the courts get hold of it.

As a brexit leave voter I have no problem with the idea of changing immigration rules, but changing the rules overnight was asking for trouble even if the wording had been agreed first.

Finally on the climate change tweets, I'm still waiting for the snow free winter that was promised back in 2000.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... endent.pdf
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5 ... edictions/.

Mark

[DHBirr]

Trump's official acknowledgment of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday omitted any mention that "some of the people" the Holocaust killed were Jewish.  Preibus, acting as his spokesman on this matter, insists there was nothing wrong with that.  Ye gods. 
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Matrix Dragon]

So there is now a Nazi on the National Security Council. Guys, your country is honestly starting to scare me.

[robkelk]

A little something for Daz Studio users. "Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental"

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestu ... -g3m/76950
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012