The Trump presidency

[bimble]

OH NOES SOROS

 

[J Ed]

Billionaire school privatisation backers arguing with each other over how schools should be privatised

Eli Broad, billionaire philanthropist and charter school backer, urges senators to oppose DeVos

Sums up politics under neoliberalism doesn't it

 

[CrabbedOne]

In The New Yorker THE NEW C.I.A. DEPUTY CHIEF’S BLACK-SITE PAST

...
John Sifton, a senior official at Human Rights Watch, said the significance of Haspel’s appointment lies in the fact that she was intimately involved in the secret C.I.A. program known by its initials, R.D.I.—rendition, detention, and interrogation. Through the program, the C.I.A. not only tortured suspects but kidnapped them from various places around the globe and often delivered them to third-party countries that tortured them.

“You are putting a person in a leadership position who was centrally involved in an illegal program,” Sifton told me. President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the secret prisons, or black sites, in 2009.
...

A torturetastic appointment.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That didn't take long:

The Republican-led Congress killed a controversial U.S. securities disclosure rule early on Friday aimed at curbing corruption at big oil, gas and mining companies.

In a 52 to 47 vote, the Senate approved a resolution already passed by the House of Representatives that wipes from the books a rule requiring companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp to publicly state the taxes and other fees they pay to foreign governments.

Republican President Donald Trump is expected to sign it shortly.

Exxon and other major energy corporations have fought for years to prevent the rule, required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, from seeing the light of day.

Senate Votes To Kill Dodd Frank Anti-Corruption Rule | The Huffington Post

 

[Old Spark]

Nor did this .Another crash anyone ?

Trump orders review that could relax Dodd-Frank bank rules - BBC News

 

[coley]

That didn't take long:



Senate Votes To Kill Dodd Frank Anti-Corruption Rule | The Huffington Post

Oh look, the consumer is being 'protected'

"Mr Trump also signed a presidential memorandum instructing the Labor Department to delay bringing in an Obama-era rule requiring financial professionals to put their clients' interests first when giving advice on retirement investments"

 

[Cloo]

#DressLikeAWoman

Yes, I found it interesting that apparently Trump likes his immediate staff to be 'sharply dressed'... considering he dresses like a man who has lifted a suit from a charity shop.

 

[ferrelhadley]

That didn't take long:



Senate Votes To Kill Dodd Frank Anti-Corruption Rule | The Huffington Post

But Hillary is in hock to the banking industry and Donald is his own man, he will stand up for Main Street against Wall Street.

 

[editor]

 

[bimble]

Once again, a Trump line on dissent that reads like it was lifted from a comic book about a fascist future US president:



The fact that he's talking about "paid protesters" suggests he's still finding time to read conspiracy websites.

I think maybe that's the most worrying tweet he's done so far, if you can see past the funny side of it. He genuinely doesn't understand why people don't adore him, unless they are paid by soros.

 

[TomUS]

... and its all going to come crashing down again just as I'm trying to retire, assuming Social Security is there for me when its time. #ThanksDonaldTrump.

But think of the Donald's banker friends. Have some compassion.

“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money,” he continued. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. So we'll be talking about that in terms of the banking industry.”...Trump also promised the business leaders in the room that he would “get taxes even lower than we're going to be cutting them,” and that he would seek their input in doing so.

Trump: We’re Gutting Dodd-Frank Because My Friends Can’t Get Loans (VIDEO)

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

But think of the Donald's banker friends. Have some compassion.

I'll be happy to put any suffering bankers out of their misery.

Its the compassionate thing to do.

 

[coley]

I think maybe that's the most worrying tweet he's done so far, if you can see past the funny side of it. He genuinely doesn't understand why people don't adore him, unless they are paid by soros.

It's obvious him and his circle are going to muzzle the press and make it a criminal offence to protest. Any one still think he's not a Neo fascist?

 

[Cloo]

Saw some interesting commentary today, thinking back to my earlier commentary about 'Could there be any harm in jumping to the conclusion of "fascism"?' saying that saying people are in danger and it's like the Nazis is not good because scared, freaked out people make poor decisions and don't come together.

I can see that, but then again, neither do complacent people.

Also the argument that it trivialises Nazis and the Holocaust.... but actually, maybe the best way to honour the victims of those regimes is to be vigilant? After all, a lot of Jews stayed put because they couldn't believe it wasn't just some passing lunacy and surely the 'real Germany' would come back and everything was fine. And presumably a lot of ordinary Germans assumed it 'couldn't be that bad' and that Jews really were just being resettled elsewhere etc.

There was also the argument 'But democracy, so you can't protest or you're being all against democracy', a favourite finger-wag of the Trumpists. But what are you supposed to do? Write letters? Put up and shut up presumably.

The fact is dubious things do happen but they are not so dreadful that people have felt the need to protest. May came in as unelected PM, but there were not widespread protests. It wasn't good but it kind of wasn't worth protesting about.

The fact is that Trump is so appalling that yes, he *is* worth protesting about. He is worth suggesting that there is something broken in democracy when someone like Trump becomes leader of the Free World, not least in the way he got there quite possibly with machinations from Russia

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh look, the consumer is being 'protected'

"Mr Trump also signed a presidential memorandum instructing the Labor Department to delay bringing in an Obama-era rule requiring financial professionals to put their clients' interests first when giving advice on retirement investments"

This is a good article explaining what Obama's Fiduciary Rule is about - via a discussion of a lawsuit and countersuit between Johnny Depp and his money managers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/johnny-depp-management-group.html

I was astonished to learn some details of how a fiduciary relationship works in the US. For example, someone hires an accountant to help manage the person's money, and to file yearly tax returns. One would think that two things could reasonably be expected of the accountant - that they would file the tax returns on time, and that they would give their best advice concerning management of the money.

Seems pretty obvious, right? Well, not in the United States. But Obama was trying to encode that fiduciary standard in law.

In truth, this battle is part of a broader clash within the federal government that is likely to shape Mr. Trump’s presidency. At the core of those who oppose the new fiduciary rules is a basic belief: People ought to bear more responsibility for monitoring their finances and lives. The fiduciary standard, its critics claim, does a disservice to the nation by placing the burden of financial accountability on advisers, rather than on us, the people who should be paying attention to what occurs with our bank accounts. We should be expected to scrutinize the advice we receive, these critics say, rather than accept it unthinkingly.

That seems utterly ridiculous to me; but the argument apparently has merit to the Trump Administration.

The critics' argument set out in the quote made me think of an analogy.

A car owner utilizes the services of a mechanic because, well, the car owner isn't a mechanic, and the mechanic is. The owner takes the car in every 6 months to that same mechanic for a tune-up and oil change. After five years, the engine packs it in, because as it turns out, the mechanic didn't change the oil in all that time.

When the owner goes to the mechanic to say 'WTF!?', the mechanic says - 'Hold on - it's on you, dude, not me. Even though you asked me to change the oil, and I said I would, and then I told you I did, and then I billed you for doing it, you should still have pulled the dipstick and checked yourself to make sure that I did it, when you got the car home. You fucked up on your personal responsibility, man."

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.





According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

White House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews

 

[Raheem]

The critics' argument set out in the quote made me think of an analogy.

A car owner utilizes the services of a mechanic because, well, the car owner isn't a mechanic, and the mechanic is. The owner takes the car in every 6 months to that same mechanic for a tune-up and oil change. After five years, the engine packs it in, because as it turns out, the mechanic didn't change the oil in all that time.

When the owner goes to the mechanic to say 'WTF!?', the mechanic says - 'Hold on - it's on you, dude, not me. Even though you asked me to change the oil, and I said I would, and then I told you I did, and then I billed you for doing it, you should still have pulled the dipstick and checked yourself to make sure that I did it, when you got the car home. You fucked up on your personal responsibility, man."

This is so obviously flawed. Your analogy uses a mechanic and your car, and what are you going to do if you don't have a car to drive wherever you like? But, back in the real world, we're talking about a bank and your money, and what's the bank going to do if it can't do whatever it likes with your money?

 

[coley]

This is a good article explaining what Obama's Fiduciary Rule is about - via a discussion of a lawsuit and countersuit between Johnny Depp and his money managers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/johnny-depp-management-group.html

I was astonished to learn some details of how a fiduciary relationship works in the US. For example, someone hires an accountant to help manage the person's money, and to file yearly tax returns. One would think that two things could reasonably be expected of the accountant - that they would file the tax returns on time, and that they would give their best advice concerning management of the money.

Seems pretty obvious, right? Well, not in the United States. But Obama was trying to encode that fiduciary standard in law.



That seems utterly ridiculous to me; but the argument apparently has merit to the Trump Administration.

The critics' argument set out in the quote made me think of an analogy.

A car owner utilizes the services of a mechanic because, well, the car owner isn't a mechanic, and the mechanic is. The owner takes the car in every 6 months to that same mechanic for a tune-up and oil change. After five years, the engine packs it in, because as it turns out, the mechanic didn't change the oil in all that time.

When the owner goes to the mechanic to say 'WTF!?', the mechanic says - 'Hold on - it's on you, dude, not me. Even though you asked me to change the oil, and I said I would, and then I told you I did, and then I billed you for doing it, you should still have pulled the dipstick and checked yourself to make sure that I did it, when you got the car home. You fucked up on your personal responsibility, man."

Actually I think the reasoning behind this is. On the face of it pretty fair, ( I have changed accountants, garages et al fairly frequently because of poor service)
But it Trumps lot are doing it, there must be an advantage, and a pretty big one for the
1%ers
ETA, think I have sussed it,
"placing the burden of financial accountability on advisers"
If the major banks screw it up again, then their customers can't hold said banks and management (their advisers) to account.

 

[Raheem]

Actually I think the reasoning behind this is. On the face of it pretty fair, ( I have changed accountants, garages et al fairly frequently because of poor service)
But it Trumps lot are doing it, there must be an advantage, and a pretty big one for the
1%ers
ETA, think I have sussed it,
"placing the burden of financial accountability on advisers"
If the major banks screw it up again, then their customers can't hold said banks and management (their advisers) to account.

More generally, it will presumably free them from whatever irksome responsibilities they are currently obliged to have with regard to their customers, so they can go back to mis-selling, sub-prime lending, reckless investing and generally ripping people off.

 

[pk]

Oh noes Soros = alluding to the ridiculous paranoia/propaganda that George Soros is funding every protest left-wing article critical of Drumpf on Earth right now.

 

[coley]

More generally, it will presumably free them from whatever irksome responsibilities they are currently obliged to have with regard to their customers, so they can go back to mis-selling, sub-prime lending, reckless investing and generally ripping people off.

Aye, that's my reading of it, but pushed as protecting and 'enabling' the 'customer'
Just can't get me head around the amount of Shyte that's being delivered (and undercover of this how many protections are being torn up)

 

[Raheem]

Aye, that's my reading of it, but pushed as protecting and 'enabling' the 'customer'

Quite possibly. War is peace, freedom is slavery, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If the major banks screw it up again, then their customers can't hold said banks and management (their advisers) to account.

The target of Obama's proposed rules isn't banks per se, it's expert financial advisers [although such paid advisers might be employed by banks]. This article gives a good explanation:

New Fiduciary Rule goes after shady financial advisers

 

[not-bono-ever]

DOdd Frank is all about capital adequacy and systemic risk- the knock on effect we saw in 2007/8- this isnt good news for anyone not in the business. The banks are adept at proclaiming that their mediocre perforamances are due to the wedge of cash they have to keep ring fenced, and say that this is reducing their ability to create more wealth by yadda yadda yadda.Importantly, it could allow more positions to be taken on to the banks books as prop business rathee thna back to backing between clients . Not sure of the Trump details but it will likely mean more risk taking and increasing systemic risk across the industry. Boom. go long automatic weapons, tinned goods and generators

 

[Nylock]

Another Judge, another spanner in the works for Trump's immigration plan

 

[Tankus]

Trump wasn't kidding about creating jobs for Americans ......oh..... to be in the litigation industry......

 

[CrabbedOne]

Trump wasn't kidding about creating jobs for Americans ......oh..... to be in the litigation industry......

Hey be fair, he's been a food bank for lawyers since the 80s. Think of all those struggling Mom&Pop law firms who benefitted. He's been feeding an insane appetite for high end German autos and fifth homes. He is a river to his people.

 

[CRI]

Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome

He really does want to watch the world burn, quite literally. :-(

 

[brogdale]

Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome

He really does want to watch the world burn, quite literally. :-(

One thing's for sure; he'd rather people obsess, engage and protest about stuff like this, rather than what the regime is really up to.

 

[ferrelhadley]