Trump II

[Otto Phocus]

I'm all in favor of Park lands.  But I always wondered why a President on his own can just declare something a Monument and limit access and other heretofore rights of the public.  It seems that these should be voted by Congress as well.  After all, we're a democratic republic and the president isn't a king.

That's the difference between a National Park and a National Monument.  The former is a congressional action and the latter a presidential action. The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president this authority but only concerning federal land.  The president does not have the authority to declare any privately owned or state owned land a National Monument. There are isolated instances where private land is contained within a National Monument, but the land remains privately owned.

While the president can modify the size of a National Monument created by a former president, it is unclear whether the president has the authority to abolish an existing National Monument. No president has attempted this and hence, the SCotUS has not ruled on this.

Congress has placed, through legislation, a few restrictions on the president's authority to designate a National Monument (in Wyoming and Alaska specifically) so there is nothing preventing congress from enacting other legislation further restricting the president's authority.

In any case, the congress can act independently of the president and designate an area, including an existing National Monument, as a National Park.  In which case, the president is out of the decision process. 

[Schewe]

Is that the Democrat platform for 2020?

Naw, why wait till then? Democrats will be using his lies against him next year in the midterm elections. By then Trump supporters will see all his promises to them broken...

Heck Obama said it well last week... ACA has a higher approval rating than Trump does (boy that must piss him off) do you honestly think the GOP will learn how to govern? They had 8 years to come up with a repeal/ replace for ACA and what happened? Trump learned being president is hard :-(

[Otto Phocus]

It would be interesting to find out how many people truly pay 100% (no deductions) of their health care premiums.  I wonder what percentage of the population that would be?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

He's still rewriting history ...

Trump questions why U.S. Civil War had to happen:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jackson-idUSKBN17X20W

"Donald Trump has shown a fascination with populist 19th-century U.S. president Andrew Jackson since he has occupied the Oval Office, hanging Old Hickory's portrait in the Oval Office, visiting his plantation in Tennessee and placing a wreath at his tomb.

In an interview that aired on Sirius XM satellite radio on Monday, Trump suggested that if Jackson had governed a little later than his 1829-1837 terms, the American Civil War might have been averted. And Trump questioned why the bloody conflict had to happen.

"Had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump told Sirius XM. He said that although Jackson was a "swashbuckler," after his wife died, Jackson visited her grave every day.

Jackson, a slave owner who was instrumental in the forced removal of Native-American tribes from the U.S. Southeast in the so-called Trail of Tears, died nearly 16 years before the start of the Civil War."

Trump says claims that Obama wiretapped him have been 'proven very strongly':
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/president-trump-ends-interview-president-obama-wiretapping-claims

"President Trump feels that his accusations of wiretapping by former President Obama have been "proven very strongly," according to a new CBS interview.

"You can take it the way you want," Trump said. "I think our side's been proven very strongly."

Asked if he stood by his earlier claims on CBS, Trump said his accusations that his predecessor "wiretapped" Trump Tower, despite FBI Director James Comey's assertion that there is no evidence to support this, were his "opinion."

When further pressed by Dickerson, Trump got up and left."

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

I would love to see a report on how people feel from only those paying full price without any subsidies. 

My two daughters have purchased Obamacare policies without subsidies (one still is on hers).  Both have had satisfactory experience.  Of course this is an n of 2.

[Schewe]

You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...

A Show about Nothing

President Trump’s first 100 days have been mostly a flurry of shallow symbolic gestures.

by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON   April 30, 2017 4:00 AM

There is a reality-television program called American Pickers, and what happens on it is this: A junkman drives around in a van and offers to buy other people’s junk, sometimes haggling over the price. The supporting characters are assistant junkmen and sundry onlookers. It is as though someone decided to remake Sanford and Son without actors, Redd Foxx’s humor, or a plot.

Its popularity is as inexplicable as it is undeniable. Because nothing actually happens on American Pickers, the show relies on the illusion of action, which is created through camerawork and editing. Junkman offers $x for a quantity of junk; Junk-Haver produces a look of concentration. The camera cuts quickly back and forth among the faces of Junkman, Deputy Junkman, Assistant Deputy Junkman, Junk-Haver, and Sundry Junk-Having Onlookers. And then there is a commercial for erection pills.

The application to the first 100 days of the Trump administration is of course obvious.

President Donald J. Trump is a creature of reality television. He may not be very good at running hotels or casinos, but he is a gifted performer, a master of creating the illusion of action. As he marks his first 100 days in office (one day of a Trump presidency would have been incredible enough), what has President Trump actually done?

--snip--

Conservatives had better start facing the fact that the president is a man overmatched by his job. All of President Trump’s reality-television posturing, all of his hooting and hollering and fussing and foolishness and tweeting and preening is sound and fury signifying squat. The Trump administration is a show about nothing.

But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a Right-Bias media source, the nationalreview.com.

So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?

[Schewe]

Wow, the great negotiator showed everybody huh?

Winners and Losers of the Spending Deal (Spoiler Alert: Trump Lost)

WASHINGTON — In the early days of the Trump presidency, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have not agreed on much. But they have come together to keep the government open for the next several months.

The more than $1 trillion spending deal that congressional leaders reached on Sunday was an act of compromise, a rarity in a highly polarized Congress.

But that was the easy part. The current fiscal year is already more than halfway over, and the new spending package — which must still be approved by lawmakers — covers only the next five months. A bigger fight awaits as the year goes on and President Trump tries to put his imprint on the budget for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

Here is a look at some winners and losers in the current spending deal.

Loser: President Trump

The Trump administration has little to brag about in this deal. The agreement provides an additional $15 billion in military spending, but that is only half of what Mr. Trump had sought.

The Trump administration called for $18 billion in cuts to domestic programs. Lawmakers were not receptive, and their response provides a preview of how members of Congress from both parties might respond as Mr. Trump presses for bigger cuts in the 2018 budget.

Consider the fate of the National Institutes of Health. The Trump administration sought a $1.2 billion reduction in funding for the agency for the current fiscal year, but congressional negotiators ended up agreeing on a $2 billion increase.

The art of the deal?

Cool...as long as he keeps showing his incompetence, the people will keep wining :~)

#MAGA In spite of Him

BTW, WaPo has a good break down of the various spending areas What’s in the spending agreement? We read it so you don’t have to.

Several take aways are:

ARTS FUNDING:
Democrats are claiming a huge victory for the arts. They successfully blocked Trump’s request to cut funding to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Instead both agencies would see a funding increase of $2 million under this spending bill, bringing each budget to $150 million for fiscal 2017.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
So much for Trump’s pledge to make deep cuts to the EPA: The spending bill would maintain nearly 99 percent of the agency’s total budget. Still, Republicans are celebrating that the $8.06 billion EPA budget will force the agency to maintain staffing levels at 15,000, the lowest since Ronald Reagan left office.

The spending bill also bans the EPA from cutting agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act and requires an update on plans to address the backlog of mining permits that have yet to be approved. The agency also cannot regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle that has led to eagle deaths and the poisoning of a wide range of animals.


NATIONAL PARKS:
The National Park Service would be fully funded, including a modest bump of $81 million for park maintenance and projects related to the agency’s centennial celebration. The money is also designed to put a dent in an $11 billion maintenance backlog that includes much needed repairs to everything from the Memorial Bridge in the District to roads at Yellowstone National Park.


NIH:
No cuts here. The bill would provide a $2 billion increase for NIH, bringing the agency’s budget to $34 billion this year. The funding is to be used, in part, for research into Alzheimer’s disease, antibiotic resistance, brain studies and the development of new treatments and cures.


PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
Democrats successfully blocked a GOP request to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding. The women’s health group will continue to have access to that money through the end of the fiscal year in September. Federal money accounts for about 40 percent of Planned Parenthood’s overall budget, with most of that money reimbursing the organization for the treatment of patients on Medicaid.


PUBLIC BROADCASTING:
Elmo and Peter Sagal, breathe easy: Congress didn’t make any cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that helps fund

[Farmer]

I'm all in favor of Park lands.  But I always wondered why a President on his own can just declare something a Monument and limit access and other heretofore rights of the public.  It seems that these should be voted by Congress as well.  After all, we're a democratic republic and the president isn't a king.

Because Congress approved the Antiquities Act to give the President that power?  Congress can always vote to remove one that has been declared if they so desire, they have that power.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Wow, the great negotiator showed everybody huh?

Let's not get carried away.  This was only the interim spending deal to keep the government running until September.  It has nothing to do with the budget proposal that the White House submitted a couple of months ago.  That's the one that will be debated for the next FY budget.  Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.

[Schewe]

Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.

Understood and agreed, but it is heartening to see the resistance working and to see Trump exposed as the fraud that he is!  It will be critical for the democrats to get their shit together in time for the midterm elections to look towards de-fanging the orange one even further by winning back the congressional majorities.

#DUMPTRUMP

[Schewe]

Lying CNN has this to say...

Climate confusion is back, and it's dangerous

By John D. Sutter, CNN

(CNN)Until Friday night, the eve of the People's Climate March on Washington, the US government website EPA.gov/climatechange explained how humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and why that is a huge deal for us and for future generations.

Now the page carries an Orwellian message: "This page is being updated."

"Thank you for your interest in this topic," the message continues. "We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President [Donald] Trump and [US Environmental Protection Agency] Administrator [Scott] Pruitt."

It's been clear for months, if not years, what Donald Trump and his appointees think of climate change. At worst, they call it a hoax. At best, they say it's overblown -- no big deal. We need more science, they claim, while also moving to strip government science agencies of funding. They want us to keep debating the climate crisis while they make it worse.

That is troubling, not only because Trump's retrograde fossil-fuel policies are likely to contribute to all the bad things that come along with human-induced global warming, from worsening droughts to faster-rising seas and mass extinction. It is troubling because Trump and his administration are "gaslighting" the American public on the science of climate change.

It's pretty clear that nothing Trump or Pruit is likely to do will HELP the environment, right? I mean, nobody thinks they are making all these changes to help improve the science and understanding, right?

[Otto Phocus]

You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...

A Show about Nothing

But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a Right-Bias media source, the nationalreview.com.

So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?

I don't always agree with the writings in the National Review authors as I find some of them a bit more extreme right wing then I am.  But I do find NR to be a respectable news source.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...

They were against him from the very beginning. Their January issue from last year (2016):

[Alan Klein]

My two daughters have purchased Obamacare policies without subsidies (one still is on hers).  Both have had satisfactory experience.  Of course this is an n of 2.

If your daughters are single and relatively young, it still should be rather cheap.  It's for older people like my cousins who are in their sixties but not under Medicare that the costs have skyrocketed.  They were paying around $18000 for insurance.  That's nuts!

[Alan Klein]

You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...

But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a

So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?

I guess you forgot that Trump ran against the traditional elite Republican establishment as well as the Democrats.  Don't you recall how Romney brutalized him during the campaign, others too like McCain.  He's a populist, kind of a "plague on both their houses" kind of politician.  Many traditional Republican media don't like his policies.  They too believe in crony capitalism, open borders for cheap illegal immigrant labor, etc.  Probably the only thing they like about him is his tax policies.     

[Alan Klein]

Let's not get carried away.  This was only the interim spending deal to keep the government running until September.  It has nothing to do with the budget proposal that the White House submitted a couple of months ago.  That's the one that will be debated for the next FY budget.  Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.

I think what's happening is that Trump and the less conservative Republicans are making deals with democrats that's better for Democrats because the more conservative republicans want the whole loaf.  They're not willing to support more moderate legislation.  Unless the conservatives are willing to accept half-a-loaf, they're going to get boxed out over and over.  They'll wind up with legislation that's less to their liking than if they're will to share the pie. 

[Schewe]

He's a populist, kind of a "plague on both their houses" kind of politician.

Yeah, sorta like Hitler, right?



Heck, even the Pope is worried about populist leaders...

Pope Francis warns against populist leaders “like Hitler” in interview given during Donald Trump’s inauguration

Pope Francis appears ready and willing to troll Donald Trump in an effort to prevent World War III.

In an interview that lasted more than an hour with Spanish newspaper El Pais and conducted just as Donald Trump was being sworn in as the 45th U.S. president on Friday, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church warned against the rise of populist leaders like Adolf Hitler.

“Hitler didn’t steal the power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people,” Pope Francis noted. The pope explained to the paper that he worries about the rise of populism in the United States and Europe.

And sadly, it seems the risk due to populism is being funded by Putin (yes, the same asshole who screwed with our election)

Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties as US conducts major review of Vladimir Putin's strategy

American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed.
James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, has been instructed by the US Congress to conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade.

The review reflects mounting concerns in Washington over Moscow’s determination to exploit European disunity in order to undermine Nato, block US missile defence programmes and revoke the punitive economic sanctions regime imposed after the annexation of Crimea.

The US move came as senior British government officials told The Telegraph of growing fears that “a new cold war” was now unfolding in Europe, with Russian meddling taking on a breadth, range and depth far greater than previously thought.

“It really is a new Cold War out there,” the source said, “Right across the EU we are seeing alarming evidence of Russian efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity on a whole range of vital strategic issues.”

Given the date of that article, 16 Jan 2016, it seems we should have been looking inward at what Putin was doing here in the US instead of what he's been doing in Europe...but now we'll be watching first the French election then Germany next year. I guess the US had to take one on the chin in defense of the rest of the free world :~(

[Schewe]

#RuhRoh



Trump demands government shutdown in angry tweets

WASHINGTON — Seemingly frustrated that he got rolled in negotiations to keep the government funded, President Trump lashed out in a pair of tweets demanding a future government shutdown and calling for the Senate to eliminate the filibuster so it can ram through his legislation.

"The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We.... either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!" Trump on Twitter Tuesday morning.

Trump may be the first president in history to demand a government shutdown, a move that has proven deeply unpopular with voters.

Trump’s tweets show how irritated he is that congressional Democrats and Republicans largely ignored his demands in order to strike a bipartisan agreement to keep the government funded — and that the bipartisan deal is being portrayed as a win for Democrats given how little actual leverage they had in the debate. The deal includes more money for some Democratic priorities like funding Planned Parenthood, and while Trump got some money for investments in the military and border security he was blocked from any cash to start building a wall along the Mexican border.

[Alan Goldhammer]

If your daughters are single and relatively young, it still should be rather cheap.  It's for older people like my cousins who are in their sixties but not under Medicare that the costs have skyrocketed.  They were paying around $18000 for insurance.  That's nuts!

Was the $18K for two people?  If so, that's about right for Obamacare as they only could charge 3X that of a young person.  The first Republican plan would have moved that to 5X so they would be paying much more.  later Republican plans removed that cap altogether.  You right, it's nuts but until we have universal healthcare for everyone that is not tied to the tax code that's how things will be.

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, sorta like Hitler, right?

Hey Jeff:  It's really tiring of you accusing Trump being Hitler.  By extension you're accusing me and others who voted him as people who would vote for Hitler.  It seems that political correctness only applies to what the left thinks is OK.  Also, people will only think that Hitler just can't be that bad of a fellow; you cheapen all the lives of all the people he killed.  What's wrong with you?  Your comparison is disgraceful and insulting.  Don't you have any shame?  Frankly, I hope the moderators shut down this thread because you've gone to far.  in fact, I'm asking them to shut it down.  You've gotten too personal.