The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

So I came across this article today and it reminded me of the Greta vs. Malala discussion on this thread... apparently they just met for the first time

Greta Thunberg meets Malala Yousafzai at Oxford University - BBC News

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So I came across this article today and it reminded me of the Greta vs. Malala discussion on this thread... apparently they just met for the first time

Greta Thunberg meets Malala Yousafzai at Oxford University - BBC News

Looks like everyone was nice & calm

[ISiddiqui]

Well yeah, no one at that meeting in Oxford is an asshole that you need to yell at

[Edward64]

Not sure how "real" or significant the "law enforcement grant" is but looks like another win for the Trump team.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/polit...ies/index.html

The Trump administration can withhold federal money from seven states, as well as New York City, over their cooperation on immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that blocked the Justice Department from withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.

The federal appeals court ruling comes amid an ongoing feud between the Trump administration and so-called "sanctuary cities," which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Over recent weeks, the administration has stepped up its fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and taken measures like barring New York residents from enrolling in certain Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry.
:
:
Lower courts have blocked the Justice Department from adding new requirements for the policing grants. In April 2018, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in favor of the city of Chicago.

But Raggi noted in Wednesday's ruling that the conditions on federal grants put forth by the administration in part help the government enforce national immigration laws and rejected the notion that the conditions "intrude on powers reserved to the States."

The requirements announced in 2017 include allowing federal immigration authorities access to jails and providing the Department of Homeland Security advance notice before local officials release an undocumented immigrant wanted by federal authorities.

[RainMaker]

Withholding tax funds from tax payers. Such a win.

[RainMaker]

I'm sure the conservative, small government, state's rights, taxation is theft crowd will be up in arms by that move. Wait, their tongues are still attached to his boots.

[GrantDawg]

Or are just too racist to care. It comes down to Trump can do anything he wants to New York or California. They are not "real Americans" there.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Not to mention New York and California pay in far more in taxes than they receive back from the Federal government. You could call this a "redistribution of wealth" if you want. Weird that the vocal anti-socialist of the board supports it.

[PilotMan]

Yeah, the whole States Rights crowd, should be pissed about the government telling a local city what they should do with their law enforcement to best serve the people of their city. Essentially dictating how much money the local government spends for the benefit of the feds.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm sure the conservative, small government, state's rights, taxation is theft crowd will be up in arms by that move. Wait, their tongues are still attached to his boots.

Coming from that crowd, a few thoughts:

1) I lean more towards open borders than closed borders, but with the laws as they are, since citizenship and immigration is under the purview of the Federal government, it is within the rights of the Federal government to withhold grants if the local government is flouting Federal law.

2) The local government are speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this. They want grant money from the Feds to help enforce laws, but they want to pick and choose which Federal laws to enforce.

3) The local government CAN and SHOULD be allowed to choose which laws to enforce on a local level (that's the whole point of elections for executive offices), however they should not be shocked to not receive grants to help enforce the laws they are choosing not to enforce. If you are not enforcing some of these, why do you need the money?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

1) I lean more towards open borders than closed borders, but with the laws as they are, since citizenship and immigration is under the purview of the Federal government, it is within the rights of the Federal government to withhold grants if the local government is flouting Federal law.

Then you're not a state's rights supporter. You're a big government person who believes the federal government should hold purview over the state. That's fine, just don't claim state's rights or smaller federal government on other issues.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2) The local government are speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this. They want grant money from the Feds to help enforce laws, but they want to pick and choose which Federal laws to enforce.

No, they want money that they paid in. If you don't want to provide them with their tax dollars, you shouldn't collect it from them. This is a redistribution of wealth based on party affiliation.

And states are not obligated at all to enforce federal laws. They can't obstruct, but they don't need to do the feds job for them. This was a decision that conservative, state's rights, small government folks approved of at one time.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

3) The local government CAN and SHOULD be allowed to choose which laws to enforce on a local level (that's the whole point of elections for executive offices), however they should not be shocked to not receive grants to help enforce the laws they are choosing not to enforce. If you are not enforcing some of these, why do you need the money?

The Byrne Grant is not for illegal immigration. It's a broad grant that funds new technology in law enforcement, forensics, drug treatment, court costs, and community programs.

If there is a percent of that grant specifically delegated toward combating illegal immigration, take that out. But this is nothing more than taking someone's tax dollars and not returning it to their community out of political spite.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Yeah, the whole States Rights crowd, should be pissed about the government telling a local city what they should do with their law enforcement to best serve the people of their city. Essentially dictating how much money the local government spends for the benefit of the feds.

State's rights folks don't really exist. It's just an excuse used to defend the confederacy and slave holders. When push comes to shove, they love their federal government.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then you're not a state's rights supporter. You're a big government person who believes the federal government should hold purview over the state. That's fine, just don't claim state's rights or smaller federal government on other issues.



No, they want money that they paid in. If you don't want to provide them with their tax dollars, you shouldn't collect it from them. This is a redistribution of wealth based on party affiliation.

And states are not obligated at all to enforce federal laws. They can't obstruct, but they don't need to do the feds job for them. This was a decision that conservative, state's rights, small government folks approved of at one time.



The Byrne Grant is not for illegal immigration. It's a broad grant that funds new technology in law enforcement, forensics, drug treatment, court costs, and community programs.

If there is a percent of that grant specifically delegated toward combating illegal immigration, take that out. But this is nothing more than taking someone's tax dollars and not returning it to their community out of political spite.

There are a wide array of laws where there is murky ground between the Federal and state government. In my opinion, those murky areas belong to the states not the Federal government. Don't put words in my mouth. If I have a kid that openly flouts my authority, I have the right to not grant privileges to that kid, that I grant to my other kids. Its no different here.

Most tax dollars that are collected by income tax are not earmarked towards anything, they go into a fund and Congress votes on the budget. From that fund, grants and expenditures are determined and voted upon. From there, the cash is allocated, and for the most part spent. Not all money allocated to a fund or part of the budget needs to be spent. Should this money be given back to the people, yes, but that is a separate argument.

With regards to the Byrne Grant, it helps fund law enforcement and forensics. Those areas help the executive branch enforce laws at the local level. (If they do not, then is the grant even needed?) It is within the power of the Federal government to withhold the grant. Just as it was within the power of the Federal government to grant the money under Obama if the Federal laws were selectively enforced at the local level.

Again, I am not saying that I side with Trump in this, I understand where he is coming from and do not begrudge him the ability to deny the funds for whatever reason he deems appropriate. Just as I would not begrudge Obama the ability to do the same thing.

Also, a grant is not the return of taxes. That is a tax rebate. A grant is awarded, and typically has a set of standards by which they are awarded. They are not mandatory expenditures.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There are a wide array of laws where there is murky ground between the Federal and state government. In my opinion, those murky areas belong to the states not the Federal government. Don't put words in my mouth. If I have a kid that openly flouts my authority, I have the right to not grant privileges to that kid, that I grant to my other kids. Its no different here.

Kids is a ridiculous comparison. Your kids don't pay you taxes and then see those taxes unevenly distributed based on political affiliation.

No one is flouting the federal governments authority. They are free to go in and arrest who they like. The state is saying "we aren't going to do your job for you" which they have every right to do (and do on many other laws).

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Most tax dollars that are collected by income tax are not earmarked towards anything, they go into a fund and Congress votes on the budget. From that fund, grants and expenditures are determined and voted upon. From there, the cash is allocated, and for the most part spent. Not all money allocated to a fund or part of the budget needs to be spent. Should this money be given back to the people, yes, but that is a separate argument.

It's not a separate argument. You are taking money from a group of people and not providing them with the same law enforcement protection because of political affiliation. It goes against what the Byrne Grant was set up to do.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

With regards to the Byrne Grant, it helps fund law enforcement and forensics. Those areas help the executive branch enforce laws at the local level. (If they do not, then is the grant even needed?) It is within the power of the Federal government to withhold the grant. Just as it was within the power of the Federal government to grant the money under Obama if the Federal laws were selectively enforced at the local level.

This is just wrong. It is not used to help the executive branch enforce laws at a local level. In fact, the federal government takes a hands-off approach and allows states and localities to use the funding for their specific needs.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

ust as I would not begrudge Obama the ability to do the same thing.

I'm sure if Obama cut funding for roads to states that allow open carry, there would be a different response from the people supporting this.

This is the federal government punishing states who don't follow their political ideology. Something a state's rights person would be irate over. No amount of mental gymnastics covers that hypocrisy.

[JPhillips]

Trump held an important meeting on coronavirus yesterday.

Diamond and Silk: "They sing the song 'I Don't Feel No Ways Tired," but I haven't got tired of winning." pic.twitter.com/iwVjk9j40s

— The Hill (@thehill) February 28, 2020

[kingfc22]

Too funny not to share

Eric Columbus on Twitter: "A little more stock market volatility and Trump might tweet this a fourth time.… "

[Lathum]

Fox News calling this a market correction. Unreal.

[panerd]

That's technically what it is. I mean I'm sure they have political reasons for calling it a correction but by definition it isn't a crash it's a drop of more than 10% from a previous high. A lot of places are calling it a correction.

[Kodos]

Yeah, that is the proper technical term at the moment.

[cartman]

I'm surprised their isn't an Edward post echoing Trump's praise that the market is above 25,000.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm surprised their isn't an Edward post echoing Trump's praise that the market is above 25,000.

Nah, too busy trying to figure out what the stock market will look like in the United Socialist States of America ....

Oh wait. Everything will be free anyway and Cuba doesn't have a stock market, no need to worry.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

That's technically what it is. I mean I'm sure they have political reasons for calling it a correction but by definition it isn't a crash it's a drop of more than 10% from a previous high. A lot of places are calling it a correction.

We're about another -6% from a bear market? More than half-way, let's go ahead and get that "overdue" marker out of the way.

[Arles]

There is a lot of uncertainty about the impact of the virus. And it's not because people are afraid of casualties or a Stephen King "The Stand" situation, it's because of the impacts of the quarantines. There a factories in Asia that don't have workers because they are in two week quarantines because they were in China for holiday or lived near there. Until the world gets production going, this uncertainty is going to hurt the market.

I'm not sure this is great news to getting rid of Trump though. My guess is we have a rough March/April and then a slow uptick from June - August (which Trump will take some credit for). But, I do think 1st Q earnings will be bad and manufacturing/production issues will be a big issue until the summer.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

There is a lot of uncertainty about the impact of the virus. And it's not because people are afraid of casualties or a Stephen King "The Stand" situation, it's because of the impacts of the quarantines. There a factories in Asia that don't have workers because they are in two week quarantines because they were in China for holiday or lived near there. Until the world gets production going, this uncertainty is going to hurt the market.

I agree it's the supply chain that originates or includes China and the downstream impacts that's causing the great uncertainty in the markets.

[JPhillips]

I think there's a lot of selling now because the fear is things will grind nearly to a stop for a while. We are just beginning to feel the effects in the West. When schools close, factories close, events get canceled, etc. things will get worse.

The big question is how leveraged are firms? I know they can't be as leveraged as in 2007, but when do losses start causing firms to sell just to cover margins?

[Edward64]

Turkey troops killed by Syria. NATO meeting called.

I don't like how we did it but I am for getting out of (or significantly reducing our presence in) Syria and since Turkey seemed to want to fill the vacuum, this is primarily their broken China shop to deal with now.

Don't know what is going on. It would seem to put Erdogan in a weak position to now cry and say "mom, this other bully punched me in the nose". What is Turkey's end game here? I know its to limit the Syrian Kurds threat to Turkey but is the intent also to occupy/annex northern Syria for the forseeable future?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there's a lot of selling now because the fear is things will grind nearly to a stop for a while. We are just beginning to feel the effects in the West. When schools close, factories close, events get canceled, etc. things will get worse.

The big question is how leveraged are firms? I know they can't be as leveraged as in 2007, but when do losses start causing firms to sell just to cover margins?

You never know with schools or events, but it looks like the factory issue is starting to improve. Our factory isn't seeing too much of an issue (it's more getting material to a few customers we have the manufacture in China) and I know that some of the initial quarantines from the Chinese New Year debacle are beginning to end.

Looking forward, I think as long as people keep buying products, we will be OK. It will be a bit of a supply chain minefield, but it isn't going to cause massive factory shutdowns or company bankruptcies (IMO). The highest chance of those issues are in China and the government will just bail them out until it passes. My guess is the media, schools and political aspects of the virus paint a "certain doom" picture, but businesses just have a small dip in orders for a few months. If it does appear bad (I don't think it ever will be bad), congress would step in anyway. The one "good" thing about Trump is he won't want massive economic hits on his resume going into the election. So, I fully expect him to leverage aspects of our country (not as good) to ensure there isn't a major impact going into November.

[RainMaker]

How's everyone's 409K?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

You never know with schools or events, but it looks like the factory issue is starting to improve. Our factory isn't seeing too much of an issue (it's more getting material to a few customers we have the manufacture in China) and I know that some of the initial quarantines from the Chinese New Year debacle are beginning to end.

Looking forward, I think as long as people keep buying products, we will be OK. It will be a bit of a supply chain minefield, but it isn't going to cause massive factory shutdowns or company bankruptcies (IMO). The highest chance of those issues are in China and the government will just bail them out until it passes. My guess is the media, schools and political aspects of the virus paint a "certain doom" picture, but businesses just have a small dip in orders for a few months. If it does appear bad (I don't think it ever will be bad), congress would step in anyway. The one "good" thing about Trump is he won't want massive economic hits on his resume going into the election. So, I fully expect him to leverage aspects of our country (not as good) to ensure there isn't a major impact going into November.

I expect there to be lots of shutdowns regionally. It won't equally effect the entire country, but where it does hit will see tremendous pressure to send everyone home for a few weeks.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How's everyone's 409K?

Down 35k in the last 8 days.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Down 35k in the last 8 days.

Down almost 70k.

I need to stop checking.

[RainMaker]

It seem fear is the biggest component. For instance, I'm a part owner in a business that imports custom products from China. Everything is fine at the moment. But we realize at any time we could get a call/e-mail saying the factory is shutting down for awhile.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How's everyone's 409K?

Unless you're like about to retire or are retired (and if that is the case your money should mostly not be in stocks/mutual funds) then this is a gift to you. The virus is a terrible thing for people of course and nobody (well at least I don't think anyone) is glad about it happening but it's something that by all accounts will run its course and will most likely not have long standing economic impacts so the entire market is on sale for you. If you're a weekly contributor whatever you bought last week is 10-15% cheaper this week.

All that matters in a 401k account is what it's worth when it's time to cash out. In the meantime if prices are lower you're getting to accumulate more shares than you otherwise would have.

Now if you're trading or investing for your own personal gain then yeah, this week sucked

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How's everyone's 409K?

Absolutely not going to look right now.

[JPhillips]

Dear God.

Trump is talking about new tax cuts.

We're all gonna get sick.

[JPhillips]

dola

Appeals Court rules that Don McGahn doesn't have to testify before congress. It may go to SCOTUS, but the GOP is pretty close to eliminating congressional oversight of the executive.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump rambles while attempting to give a coronavirus update: "A lot of people are getting better ... the fifteen number ... the fifteen people likewise we have them down to a much lower number ... one of the people is -- i wouldn't say not doing well" pic.twitter.com/oLVrWq0C7c

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) February 28, 2020

[Ben E Lou]

"We're ordering a lot of supplies. We're ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn't be ordering unless it was something like this. But we're ordering a lot of different elements of medical." -- Trump on the coronavirus pic.twitter.com/id6YLzbmRE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2020

[JPhillips]

lol Fox News showing a chart that proves that even after this week the market has gone way up since 1929.

If the virus hits like medical professionals think it will the GOP response is going to be crippling for their election chances. All of the models and polls right now can be thrown away if the virus takes hold.

[RainMaker]

The Fake News Media barely mentions the fact that the Stock Market just hit another New Record and that business in the U.S. is booming...but the people know! Can you imagine if “O” was president and had these numbers - would be biggest story on earth! Dow now over 25,000.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2018

[RainMaker]

Also congrats to everyone on their 0.8% return since that tweet.

[Edward64]

A loss for Trump.

IMO worked pretty well in "punting" the problem to Mexico (and Trump has been able to bully Mexico). Unsure what happens next.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/polit...urt/index.html

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration from sending asylum seekers to Mexico to wait for their immigration hearings in the US, a major blow to the administration as it has increasingly relied on the program to send thousands of migrants back to Mexico.

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applies across the southern border and strips the administration of one of its key asylum policies, which went into effect in January 2019. The Ninth Circuit also issued a separate ruling that upheld a lower court's block on an administration policy denying asylum to those who crossed the southern border illegally.

The so-called "remain in Mexico" program required migrants, many of whom are from Central America, to stay in Mexico until their respective court dates in the US. On Thursday, acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said 59,000 people have been enrolled in the program, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols program.
:
:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had initially let the "remain in Mexico" program continue last year, but over the course of oral arguments last year, the judges grappled with aspects of the policy. Fletcher, for example, expressed skepticism over not asking asylum seekers whether they fear returning to Mexico before sending them back.
:
:
It's unclear what will happen to the migrants already subject to the "remain in Mexico" policy.

[molson]

I can't decide if it's better if Trump blows off the coronavirus, or if he takes it seriously.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump rambles while attempting to give a coronavirus update: "A lot of people are getting better ... the fifteen number ... the fifteen people likewise we have them down to a much lower number ... one of the people is -- i wouldn't say not doing well" pic.twitter.com/oLVrWq0C7c

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) February 28, 2020

Has there ever been a President that sounds this fucking stupid? I'll answer, no, not even close.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is remarkable. Hoping fears are being overplayed because if not, we are fucked.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I can't decide if it's better if Trump blows off the coronavirus, or if he takes it seriously.

This will be interesting. I think he'll downplay it to the media as much as possible. Might get into conspiracy theory territory here too where he says the CDC and doctors are lying. If it gets real bad, we could enter some really dark shit where they just won't admit the people are dying of the disease.

I have to imagine behind the scenes people are taking it serious because his re-election largely rides on this response. Plus I'm sure people there don't want to die.

[GrantDawg]

My wife is an optician. She says she is seeing serious supply problems with glasses frames right now. Even the one American made frame company is way behind, because all of their parts come from China.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

I can't decide if it's better if Trump blows off the coronavirus, or if he takes it seriously.

Hopefully Mike Pence can run conversion therapy on the virus and change it into a bacteria with the quickness

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

My wife is an optician. She says she is seeing serious supply problems with glasses frames right now. Even the one American made frame company is way behind, because all of their parts come from China.

One of the factories for the company my wife works for in China is shut down. They are going to have big problems soon.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A loss for Trump.

IMO worked pretty well in "punting" the problem to Mexico (and Trump has been able to bully Mexico). Unsure what happens next.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/polit...urt/index.html

Spoke too soon, apparently still in place until to gets to SCOTUS.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/polit...urt/index.html

A federal appeals court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to continue sending migrants to Mexico to wait for their immigration hearings in the US, hours after issuing a ruling that ended the policy.
:
:
Late Friday night, the Ninth Circuit put its ruling on hold after a request by the Trump administration and set a timeline for replies. The policy can continue in the interim.

The Trump administration had asked the court to put a temporary hold on its ruling as soon as Saturday. Lawyers for the Justice Department said they feared "a rush on the southern border by some of the 25,000 or more individuals who are in Mexico under MPP and may now seek immediate entry into this country." The Justice Department alternatively also asked for an administrative stay until March 6 so it could appeal the case to the Supreme Court.