What has Trump done now?

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Wow, I guess those who are going to wait and see, with some hope of positive change, are keeping their heads down. Like we do about the myth of climate change.

🙄

 

Whn you proffer up ceredible evidence climate change is a myth or economic indicators that in the mid - longer term climate change is not a myth or doesn't offer better returns, I'll stop rolling my eyes. In bond origination > 15 years (which is very common for commerical debt), try and get reasonabel rate finance on a leveraged new fossil fuel project..  Most firms I know ar sying away from this lending because the financial risks are to high and expected returns, in the absence of discriminatory regulation (oh, wouldn't that be ironic)  from fossil fuels are looking quite a bit lower. Want to grow an economy? Get it to invest. What needs mass investment? Renewables.. Want a wealthier nation with lower operating costs (forgetting the other benefits), fossil fuel really doesn't add up.

 

I suppose when they eventually stop insuring your house and you have to hold all the risk, as did happen to many in LA, you may change your tune..

 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

meant no offense to those government workers who are diligent and ethical.

 

However there are others not so worth their pay.

I have worked in both government and private enterprise in both Australia and the UK.. and my anecdotal observation is pretty this is much the same across both in similar proportions. The difference is, even at my level, which is currently middle management, I am held accountable for cost and economic management, risk management, and functional output in a way that the civil/public service isn't, even when the public service claim to be.

 

But, I think it is a good thing that reviews of and improvemennt to performance and efficiency are conducted - such as DOGE.. It is the execution in this case that worries me. The people conducting such reviews had costs associated with the regulation. I agree regulation should be implemente on a risk based approach - just look at the over regulation of GA in Europe for no safety gain. But those appointed in charge of DOGE have a definite conflict of interest - regulation costs them.. and affects their profits. Therefore, they have an incentive, in their optimisation of the government services to nobble regulators to make them ineffective under the guise of efficiencies and reducing the cost of government.

 

Also, public bodies have a very different function to private enterprise... and it owuld be better to appoint an independent head and hear evidence from different stakeholders in determining the right way to move forward, balancing the objectives of different stakeholders. Althogh in theory that is the same for private enterprise (after all, if you don't have happy customers,who are stakeholders, they won't buy), in practice, many large corporate companies have shown they can ignore a set of their stakeholders, have lots of waste, and still survive, if not thrive. And their bosses that cause this seem immune to the consequences. Anyone care to see how tough Joyce is doing at the moment?

 

And this is the issue with Trump. No doubt, he will get some good done.. some situations respond well to his ways.. but on the whole, the way he has arranged his henchmen this time does not bode well for a balanced improvement..

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

HOW SPECIAL can one be?

He obviously has something, as of the prosecutions that mattered, everything took a very long time, and for some reason, they think a presidential candiate (not president) has special dispensation from having the law applied to him. Even the biased supreme court ruling only counted for while he was president, and only at the state level.

 

To be honest, the US exemplifies what a veil of a democracy and rule of law is..

[nomadpete]

I had been grasping at a faint hope that once HIS ego was satisfied by winning the contest - maybe he could be less extreme.

 

However, judging by day one, he is shaping up to be worse than my worst fears.

 

If/when musky one steps over him, it will be as Nev said.

 

"an unmitigated disaster"

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by nomadpete

[octave]

I do find it somewhat sad that some of his supporters who are struggling in life believe that Billionaire Trump and his billionaire picks for positions in his administration will improve their lot. Does anyone really think Musk will do anything for them? No I think he and Trump  and the other billionaires are in it for themselves (and I used to be a Musk fanboy)

 

I saw an interview with a Trump supporter who said they were looking forward to Trump ending Obamacare. When the interviewer asked what they relied on for health care they said the ACA (Affordable Care Act.)  They were shocked and dismayed when the interviewer pointed out that Obamacare is the colloquial name for the Affordable Care Act. Trump's talent is convincing people that things that will be bad for them will be good. When asked during the debate about his health care plan Trump said he "had a concept of a plan" As far as I am aware this is still the best he has but I guess time will tell.

[nomadpete]

The saddest thing is that the world needs some good stuff more than ever.

 

Statesmen to lead countries

 

Leadership that shows honour

 

Honesty from leaders (integrety flows down from the top)

 

Real Diplomacy - not asslicking.

 

Alas. I see none.

[ClintonB]

[ClintonB]

[old man emu]

The President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has just ordered the Mexican Army to deploy along the Mexico/USA border to repel the invasion of US citizens of the Republican persuasion who are fleeing persecution by people of the Democrat persuasion.

 

On a serious note, Trump claims he has a mandate (the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election) to do what he is doing. However, obtaining a mandate through an election implies an overwhelming level of electoral support. Trump didn't even get 50% of the total votes cast. It was the stupid Electoral College system of determining the Presidency that put him there.

[nomadpete]

No no no.

 

It was a landslide win!

 

I saw that on Fox so.... it must be true.

[old man emu]

Two legal challenges to Trump's actions have already been filed in the District Court of Washington DC. One relates to the legality of the body known as DOGE and the other relating to Trump not recognising birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. As the presenter of this video says, grab your choc top and popcorn and grab a seat in the courtroom. There will be plenty of entertainment there, especially since the judges there lean to the Left, having been appointed by Clinton and Obama.

 

Trump is a persistent litigant. Now he has become a persistent respondent.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Trump didn't even get 50% of the vote & the margin between him & Harris was 1.62%. This was the 4th smallest margin since 1960, that's 65 years ago. The margin was less than half of Bidens margin 4 years ago. The bluff & bluster right now is Trumps ego out in full bloom but there are processes and laws that mean he just can't "Executive Order" his way to make any meaningful change. He only really has 2 years anyway as the mid terms could very easily lose his senate & congress majorities.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-size-of-donald-trumps-2024-election-victory-explained-in-5-charts

 

He tried to ban anyone from the middle east entering the country in 2017 & that was shot down almost instantly. His billionaire mates will desert like rats from a sinking ship when the excrement hits the fan. It is just a matter of time. The only problem is the MAGA nutters & with all of the pardons for the insurrection they will feel even more emboldened. Civil war is a distinct possibility when things begin to go badly.

[rgmwa]

I pulled this extract from a New York Times opinion piece by jack Goldsmith. I think it sums Trump up pretty well.

 

It takes extraordinary skill to wield executive power successfully throughout an administration. If past is prologue, Mr. Trump lacks the acumen to carry out his ambitious agenda.

The first problem is management style. In his first term, Mr. Trump was a poor administrator because of his mercurial, polarizing style and a general indifference to facts and the hard work of governance. There is no reason to think this will change in his second term. Mr. Trump also lacks the emotional intelligence that the great presidents had in various degrees — the self-awareness, self-control, empathy and ability to manage relationships that are so vital to steering the ship of state on the desired course.

 

Second is the question of whether Mr. Trump knows where he wants to go. “Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America,” Mr. Schlesinger noted. Mr. Trump has a powerful slogan, “America first,” a robust agenda, and many discrete and often insightful political instincts. But he lacks a coherent sense of the public ends for which he exercises power. This will make it hard over time for his administration to prioritize challenges, a vital prerequisite for presidential success. It will also make his administration susceptible to drift and reactiveness, especially once unexpected events start to crowd the presidential agenda.

 

Third, personal gain was neither a priority of the great presidents nor a guide to their exercise of power. There is every reason to believe that Mr. Trump’s personally motivated first-term actions — his insistence on loyalty over other values, his preoccupation with proclaiming and securing his personal power, and his indifference to conflict-of-interest norms — will persist. These inclinations will invariably infect the credibility, and thus the success, of everything his administration does.

 

Fourth, Mr. Trump is unlike any previous president, even Jackson, in broadly delegitimating American institutions — the courts, the military and intelligence communities, the Justice Department, the press, the electoral system and both political parties. This will do him no favors when he needs their support, as he will.

Mr. Trump is especially focused on eroding the capacity of federal agencies. At the same time, he has plans to regulate in areas including health, crime, energy and education, and to deport millions of people, all of which require a robust and supportive federal work force. Mr. Trump’s twin aims of incapacitating the bureaucracy and wielding it to serve his ends will very often conflict.

 

Fifth, Mr. Trump’s obsession with hard executive power and an extreme version of the unitary executive theory will be self-defeating. If his stalwart subordinates carry out his every whim, as he hopes, bad policies will result. If the loyalists Mr. Trump is putting at the top of the Justice Department do not give him candid independent advice that he follows, he will violate the law and often lose in court, as happened in his first term.

 

The great presidents used coercive unilateral power when they needed to, but only when they needed to — none more so than Lincoln and Roosevelt, who faced the most serious crises in American history. But these presidents also understood that hard power could go only so far and that persuasion and consent were surer tools to achieving lasting presidential goals in our democracy. This idea is lost on Mr. Trump.