What has Trump done now?

[red750]

'Trump 1.0' Staffer Spells Out What Awaits Second Term Team: 'Not Going To Lie To You'

 

Olivia Troye, who served as an adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence during Donald Trump’s first term, has published a survival guide for those who will staff the White House upon Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

In the latest issue of Troye’s email newsletter “We Lived It,” the now fierce Trump critic acknowledged the excitement that “probably super-MAGA” incoming staffers will have, just like she did during “Trump 1.0,” about working for the current president-elect.

 

But she warned they will at some point “bear witness to something that changes your mind” that will let them “see Trump for who and what he truly is.” She then offered advice on how to deal with the “quandary” — from remembering who they serve to expecting the unexpected and being brave.

 

Troye also issued further strategies for women working in the Trump White House who will face “an extra set of challenges,” she wrote, amid what she described as its “chauvinisticmale-dominated culture.”

 

“I’m not going to lie to you. No matter who you are, you are entering a hostile environment,” she wrote. “I was fortunate—Mike Pence was a decent, respectful island in Trump’s sea of contempt. It will be much, much worse this time.”

 

Read the full email here

[red750]

Yes, Donald Trump Appeared To Make A Joke About Serving A Third Term As President, And People Are Reacting How You Would Expect

 

During a recent meeting with House Republicans, President-elect Donald Trump made a comment about serving a third term — an action outlawed by the US Constitution.

 

He said: "I suspect I won't be running again unless you [House Republicans] say, 'He's so good, we've got to figure something else out.'"

 

The comment was met with laughter by those in the room. Then, when speaking to MSNBC, former Trump White House press aide Sarah Matthews added that "maybe there is a chance that he means it. But I highly doubt it,” she said. “But I do think that it is weird to joke about.”

 

It's hard for some online to take Trump's words as a joke, though — especially following previous moments like when he asked, "After America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT)."

 

Likewise, when given the chance to assure the American people that he would not act like a dictator, Trump responded by saying, ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

 

So you can imagine how some reacted when news of him joking about a third term hit people's timelines.

 

"He's talked about this before," one person reminded others, speaking of when Trump sparked concern over future voting rules when speaking at the Believers' Summit.

 

The former president told audience members at the time: “Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

 

"This is what he always does," another said. "He floats an idea in the air, then slowly starts repeating until you're used to hearing it, so when he eventually does it, you're expecting it."

 

"The thing about Trump 'joking' about running again in 2028 is that 1) he likes to test the water," another person agreed.

 

Regardless of whether he was joking, many suggested Trump needed reminding that "there's a 2 term limit on the presidency"...

 

...as well as the fact that the Constitution holds this limit firm.

 

 

[red750]

[red750]

Read five reports on reactions to Trump's election (skip the one in the middle about Clinton's visit to a Swifties concert).

 

Read reports here.

[red750]

This SCOTUS precedent could derail Trump’s dream of ending birthright citizenship: legal scholars

 

One of President-elect Donald Trump's many controversial proposals is ending birthright citizenship, which is promised in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

 

Journalist Maryam Khanum, in an article published by International Business Times on November 25, explains why Trump's proposal may run into major legal hurdles.

That is The Most Realistic PC Game of 2024

 

"President-elect Donald Trump's promise to end the practice of birthright citizenship in the U.S. with his return to office will likely be thwarted by a Supreme Court precedent that is over a century old, according to experts," Khanum explains. "Trump has long promised to end birthright citizenship. In fact, he first discussed this goal when campaigning for his first presidential term in 2016."

 

But Khanum notes that according to legal scholars, the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark could prove to be obstacle for Trump and his allies.

 

In that case, according to Khanum, the High Court "ruled that any child born on American soil is a U.S. citizen even if their parents are not U.S. citizens."

 

According to Khanum, "The ruling followed the birth of Horace Wong, who was 21 years old at the time of the case. Wong had been born to 'subjects of the Emperor of China" in San Francisco and was determined to be a U.S. citizen."

 

Leti Volpp, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, recently told Bay Area station KQED, "We have a legal system which is based on precedent. In the case of Wong Kim Ark ... there has been no chipping away at precedent through other decisions," Volpp continued.

[red750]

'I intend to defend them': Senate Republican warns Trump against government purge

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), despite being a staunch Donald Trump ally, is warning the president-elect against any plan to go on a mass firing spree of government inspectors general.

 

In an interview with Politico, Grassley was asked whether Trump should do as some of his allies suggest and conduct a purge of inspectors general, who are responsible for investigating alleged wrongdoing in key executive branch agencies.

 

"No," Grassley replied. "He should not."

 

Grassley also indicated that he would not sit idly by should Trump go after the inspectors general, even though he remained mostly silent when Trump fired some of them during his first term.

 

"I guess it’s the case of whether he believes in congressional oversight, because I work closely with all the inspector generals and I think I’ve got a good reputation for defending them," he said. "And I intend to defend them." 

 

That said, it's also possible that Grassley is talking out of both sides of his mouth. As Politico notes, "last week, Grassley sent every inspector general in the federal government ademand for information about sexual harassment settlements involving employees of the watchdog offices," which "seemed to raise the possibility he could be gathering data that Trump’s team could use to target specific IG offices."

[red750]

Trump's 'political whirlwind' may force 'overreach' that will doom presidency: CNN analyst

 

Donald Trump's return to the White House will most likely set off a "political whirlwind" in Washington, D.C. — especially if he can place his preferred choices in top administration positions, a CNN analyst wrote Monday.

 

The president-elect's team has quickly announced a slate of Cabinet nominees that have been questioned as unqualified or even dangerous, and writer Stephen Collinson said some of the most controversial picks face a big test heading into Thanksgiving week.

 

"One big unknown is whether Republican senators are again prepared to challenge Trump’s judgment after it quickly became clear that [attorney general nominee Matt] Gaetz wouldn’t have enough of their votes to be confirmed amid his own sexual misconduct allegations, which he denies," Collinson wrote.

  

Read more here

[red750]

Shock as Trump slaps on tariffs to curb the flow of drugs and illegal immigration into the US

 

Donald Trump has just announced his biggest executive order yet and he’s not even officially the president.

 

In a bid to curb the flow of illicit drugs and illegal migrants into the US, Donald Trump plans on slapping Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff until these illegal activities stop.

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Trump is only the symptom and not the cause. Even after he's gone the conditions that led to Trump being elected will still be there. It's happening all over the world where people have had a gut full of governments lording it over them. You only have to look at the rise of the right in Europe as an example. People see Trump as an anti-politician,  a dismantler and de-regulator who will free things up and break down a lot of federal restrictions, so he's regarded as a big winner by the disgruntled. We can whinge all we like about Trump but unless governments worldwide change their ways, there will just be more Trumps. His supporters see him as the wild card needed to shake up the establishment and break down big brother government.

[willedoo]

Blaming the American voters and shaming them as being dumb and ignorant for electing him is a head in the sand denial of the real reasons he got back in. If they want no more Trumps they have to change things.

[red750]

A small aside. Over 2.5 million have signed an online petition in the UK calling for another general election.Read more.

[Marty_d]

11 hours ago, willedoo said:

Blaming the American voters and shaming them as being dumb and ignorant for electing him is a head in the sand denial of the real reasons he got back in. If they want no more Trumps they have to change things.

I don't actually agree with that.

You may be correct that Trump is a symptom, but the fact remains that he will NOT make anyone's life better in any way, unless they're a dictator or a billionaire.

So voting him in as some sort of protest or anti government stance is still pointless and stupid.

[willedoo]

42 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

the fact remains that he will NOT make anyone's life better

You're might be right Marty but we've got four more years to make that judgement. It will either be progress or chaos. His track record is a bit chaotic. Most presidents in their last term try to achieve something to leave as a legacy but with Trump it will all depend on how much self discipline he can muster.

[willedoo]

The point is, blaming someone ie: the American voters is a coping mechanism that helps everyone get over the shock of his win but doesn't address the reasons that he won and certainly won't prevent more Trump-like leaders being elected in the future. Trump didn't win because all his voters are stupid. Only a certain amount of his voters are the dumb rednecks portrayed in the media. We think there's a lot of them because we see them in the media all the time and at his rallies. What the media doesn't show is the tens of millions of non newsworthy people at home who went out and voted in a Republican president.

 

Let's say Trump scored 76.9 million votes to 74.4 for Harris, beating her by 2.5 million votes in the popular vote. It doesn't work this way but just theoretically, let's say that 2.5 million were dumb devotees of Trump and they got him over the line. It still doesn't account for why the other 74 million voted the way they did. For sure we can all say Trump only won because people are stupid, but it's classic denial.

[rgmwa]

A lot of people voted for Trump because that’s who they wanted. Many others voted for him because they wanted to send a message to the Democrats that they blamed them for the cost of living increases. Kamala did well to get as many votes as she did. The Trump voters may come to regret their choice when they see what a career criminal in the White House can do when he’s immune from prosecution and free to trash their country and the rest of the world.

[red750]

I see lots of comments on Facebook from people who believe that Trump will save them from the financial problems they are facing, in other words, they voted through their pockets. Unfortunately for the Dems, a number of worldwide circumstances (Covid, Middle East wars, etc.), have caused inflation, and they are blaming the Dems for these effects. I think, when they realise that Trumps policies will increase these problems, not reduce them as he promised, those who jumped ship may change their mind at the midterms. Trump cannot be removed at the midterms, but he may lose control of the House, and possibly even the senate, which will tie his hands. I doubt they would use the 25th Amendment to get rid of him, as that would put Vance in charge.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Midterm elections historically generate lower voter turnout than presidential elections. While the latter have had turnouts of about 50–60% over the past 60 years, only about 40% of those eligible to vote go to the polls in midterm elections. Historically, midterm elections often see the president's party lose seats in Congress, and also frequently see the president's opposite-party opponents gain control of one or both houses of Congress.

[Marty_d]

Ok, I'll be kinder, replace "stupid" with your choice of "confused", "misled", "apathetic", "fooled", "uncaring" etc.

 

The point is that when you look at his statements and "policies" with an objective lens, they will either not achieve the desired outcome or will actually achieve the opposite.

Add to this the proven 30,000 lies he told in his first presidency, his felony conviction and all the other charges, his terrible behavior to women, his multiple bankruptcies, the close relationship he has with white supremacists and other nutjobs, his admiration for dictators, and his handling of the pandemic which resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

 

So to give him your vote means that either you know all that and still approve of him, which says something about your own character, or you don't know it, which means you're ignorant, or you don't believe it, which means you're a tin-foil hat wearer, or you accept it all but still think somehow he's better than Kamala, which leads back to stupid, or you're not interested in all of it but think he'll be better for your own bottom line, which makes you either apathetic, misled or uncaring.

 

It appals me that over 70 million people fit those categories but I have a hard time thinking of any other explanation.

[nomadpete]

When it comes to trying to reason "WHY", I find myself agreeing to everyone's comments. I'm sure they all apply to some extent at least.

 

I am looking for a major factor that would have appealed to the majority of voters. The 77 million that Marty mentioned.

 

I suspect the common cord that DJT struck was the almost universal distrust that everyone shares for the faceless bureaucracy that regulates everybody.

Hollywood has been promoting this for ever. Anecdotes abound. Sure there are bureaucratic Departments that need reinventing. Top heavy departments can hold back the country.

 

But Nobody gets up and says what a good job a good bureaucracy did about something. Nobody says how bad things get when we don't have regulation.

 

Along comes DJT running rough shod over 'official process'.

Drain the swamp! Throw out the rules! Hurrah!

 

Average punters do know he is erratic but overlook that because just maybe he might make changes - the Dems only offered 'more of the same-old'.

 

Edited November 27 by nomadpete
spellunk errers

[old man emu]

You have to determine the number of dyed-in-the-wool supporters for each Party. They are the people who would never change sides. Each party can rely on those votes without having to do much to gain them. Then you have the voters who have considered the merits of each Party's platform and vote based on the results of that. I doubt if the numbers of those are great enough to have a great impact on the result. Finally there are the swinging voters who respond to the sales pitch. These are the ones who provide the numbers to determine the result. In gathering those swinging voters, it is pretty clear that while Harris's campaign was formulated by people experienced in running a government, Trump's was created by experts in advertising psychology. 

 

The swinging voters were won over with 'bread and circuses', but never were asked to investigate where the flour and entertainers were coming from. The presenter of this video points out the self-centeredness of a lot of people which biased them towards the "them versus us" theme of a lot of Trump's advertising. Bear with the Southern accent.

 

 

[red750]

34 minutes ago, old man emu said:

this video points out the self-centeredness of a lot of people which biased them towards the "them versus us" theme

This theme is supported by a strong thread through the comments of a paranoia about communism, and any social supporting of the disadvantaged is a communist trait. Helping out the poor and unemployed is met by the call "We don't share revenue, let them work for it." They believed the Dems were too generous to underpriveleged.

[pmccarthy]

Trump will achieve a lot of things that need to be done and would not have been done otherwise. He might break a few things along the way.

[facthunter]

After all GOD chose him for the  Job.   Nev

[onetrack]

It seems most Trump voters have extremely short memories. Trump promised the world last time, but failed to deliver on many of the things he said he'd do. This time around, it's simply a vengeance and retribution Govt.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Trump will achieve a lot of things that need to be done and would not have been done otherwise. He might break a few things along the way.

I don't inherently disagree with this. Trump is not one for diplomacy nor one for worrying about wider impacts. In his last term, depending on where one stands  he did do some good things.

 

For example most European/NATO nations are now either spending ir have a plan implemented to spend 2% of GDP on defence and that was before Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

 

He managed to start the ball rolling on normalising relations between Arab states and Israel - and that is no mean feat. 

 

I am not sure of his wisdom of pulling out of the Iran deal.. have to do more research, but it's fair to say Iran appears to have been a nefarious actor while the US was in the deal.

 

Looking at the Trumpometre, some of his policies would accord well with most here, albeit not successful, or a cynic may say, never intended. The lobbying bans, controlling immigration, health saving account, free access to the drug market, 550bn infra fund (spund a little like the inflation reduction act), no cuts to social security, no cuts to medicaid, expand mental health programs, guaranteed 6 weeks holiday,  expand economy by 4% a year, etc; I could go on

 

I also think the idea of DOGE is a good one.. in terms of improving efficiency.. not sure I agree with the proposed execution of the idea.

 

Of course in his previous term some was blocked by a Congress and then senate that was held by the opposition, some was probably never intended, and some was probably incompetence.. sounds like any other government to me

 

He is transactional and a bully. He will get some good things done, but will it outweigh the bad and the things he breaks on the way?

 

 

Edited November 27 by Jerry_Atrick

[red750]

Trump 'heading for a real horror show' and GOP 'will be held accountable': Dem senator

 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) predicted that President-elect Donald Trump would not have a very long honeymoon while in office.

 

Appearing on CNN, Blumenthal argued that Trump's threats to slap America's largest trading partners with massive tariffs should be taken very seriously and predicted it would cause immediate tension with his campaign promise to end inflation.

 

"I think he's heading toward a real horror show where the consequences can't be squared with the promises he's made," Blumenthal said.

 

He then pointed to Trump's decision to not only enact tariffs but also appoint X CEO Elon Musk to what he described as a "hit squad" that could target Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for cuts in order to fund more tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It is very hard to make those kinds of promises and fulfill them," he said.

 

"Republicans will be held accountable. Not only the president-elect when he takes office, but also my Republican colleagues in the United States Senate if they go along with these irresponsible policies."

 

Later in the interview, Blumenthal was asked about whether Trump's key cabinet picks could be confirmed without undergoing FBI background checks.

Home Loan Comparison Made Easy

 

Read more, watch video here