The Donald Trump Score Card

my vacation plans are shot now.

 

sorry but any comparison between Trump and Obama or Trump and any sane, rational person is ludicrous. We are talking about Trump after all.

 

Yeah, that would be real crazy----tantamount to Americans electing a Reality TV show star with loose morals who is also a narcissistic rich man, who time and again, has demonstrated that he cares only for himself, running on a platform that includes anti-science, hate-mongering, xenophobia, and questionable leanings and supporters to the far right...

That would be totally crazy-----Americans are smarter than that...

 

What would be more crazy is the 2 political parties continue to put out the same carbon copy cookie cutter candidates and have the country go into a slow steady dive and expect people to not want actual change.

 

Trump just fired Sally Gates. (I'm sure fans of his "reality" TV show were waiting for him to say "you're fired"). She's been replaced by Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The catch is Yates was the only one with clearance for handling orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, so if Sessions isn't confirmed promptly as AG, our national security might be compromised.

 

Trump hotels and casinos could be placed along the wall for tourists who want to see the big beautiful thing.

Comedian Lewis Black had the idea long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgebfbjKm48

 

Here is a little history on Wall Street and things like the Dodd-Frank legislation from someone that lived through it:

There was a law called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was created in the 30's--in the Great Depression. One of the key points to this law was to prevent banks from participating in the securities industry, and to prevent securities firms and investment banks from participating in the banking industry. In short, banks were supposed to be boring conservative institutions that protected our money, and allowed people a safe place to tuck it away; while brokerage firms and investment banks were the exciting risk takers that would risk capital to finance industry, and give investors an opportunity to make big returns.

For years and years and years the banks were jealous of the brokerage firm's big profits, and their ability to garner fees off of both winning and losing deals. Brokerage firms were jealous of the huge amounts of cash sitting in the accounts of bank's. Both sides realized that if they could offer both services, that they could become an all-inclusive financial center that could gain complete control over their customer's money---catering to every financial need that customer would have.

So they fought for years to repeal Glass-Steagall. Over time the bill weakened and banking products became blurred in some ways with brokerage products. Banks were able to engage in limited underwriting and so forth. Finally in 1999, the act was repealed.

Almost immediately banks started taking on high risk deals----most notable was the experiment known as Enron. In case you don't remember much about this company----it basically was a scam---it appeared to be making very high profits when in fact it was actually just engaging in off the books financing----deals that were generating very high profits for brokerage firms and banks alike. It was basically a shell game moving a rapidly growing debt from one location to another. But what it really was, was a experiments in what was later to become the credit crisis that created the Great Recession. The collapse of Enron was a big deal, a bit of a shock to the economy. The brokerage firms involved got penalized, while the banks that were involved---since it was their first time sitting at the adult table, each got a slap on the wrist. They all said they wouldn't do it again.

But, it was only a few years later when they all took what they learned at Enron and turned the global economy into a giant off the books financing scheme with each player competing to get the biggest share of profits. Brokerage firms were lending money and doing mortgages, banks were underwriting debt, there was no longer a division between the two. But the bigger problem was that there was now no one protecting the money. No conservative players...

The Glass-Steagall Act was never fully re-enacted through the Dodds-Frank legislation---they are still working on it.

But it should be obvious that the laws that are put in place following the lessons of our hubris--the great disruptions of our financial and credit system--laws intended to curb the greed that our financial system so easily incites, serve a very important purpose. History demonstrates that repealing these laws always ends up in catastrophe.

The most assinine thing about this, is that here we are barely a decade away from the last crisis, and we have an idiot dumb enough to do it already...

 

But the people have to be intelligent enought to choose the right change. I forget if it was Plato or Socrates that said that a healthy democracy is dependent upon the intelligence of its citizens.

 

I think people should be very wary of the power given to Bannon. This is a very scary side to all of this.

And then I read in the New York Times that Flynn and his staff are putting together a truncated daily security briefing for Trump-----he was the one fired from Obama's staff, and has had a shaky relationship in intelligence circles because, if I remember correctly, he stretches the truth and spins it into the realm of conspiracy-----what is commonly known in Washington as Flynn Facts.

 

yeah there is a problem there...this gets into an area where pressed rat would do a good argument.

as for me i think there was a few good outside candidates in the last 20 years but it just wasnt time to change yet.
there are still too many people blindly voting for party rather than candidate.

 

I disagree on intelligence but they do need to be educated and informed to think for themselves in a clear, rational and especially questioning way.

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

The problem I’ve often found here is that many hold to ideas they are unable to defend from valid criticisms, many people seem to see their political ideas as if they were a religion were faith in them trumps rational thought.

 

Charles would also disagree with DT over human rights. But he's in a position where as heir to the throne he's not supposed to voice 'political' opinions.

If Trump's state visit here goes ahead,and it looks like May is dead set on it, he doesn't necessarily have to meet with Charles, although most heads of state do. They go for tea with him at Clarence house. If they do meet I would not expect a very warm exchange. Trump would be totally out of his depth with Prince Charles.
Also, it's probably an embarrassment to the Queen, who would have to meet him and extend the usual courtesies.

I'm with the now 1.6 million who have signed the petition to prevent the visit - but my guess is that it will go ahead, probably with a lot of protests.

 

funny this post being just above

this one

 

It's a strange situation I agree, but that's the general rule. As a purely constitutional monarch, the Queen is supposed to stay politically neutral. She's always done that, Charles has often been accused of interference in various things - getting building projects he doesn't like stopped for example, and he's outspoken about the environment and climate change. That's OK because he's only expressing his view, and not telling people to vote green. If he were to directly criticize Trump, it would cause big problems.

Basically, all British law and government rests on the power of the crown. But the actual monarch's only political role is to sign bills passed by Parliament into law, and other purely ceremonial duties such as opening and dissolving Parliament. Should a monarch ever decide they can't sign a particular bill, nobody really knows what would happen. We'd have a constitutional crisis.
It's possible that Charles will find this a bit suffocating when he becomes king, and he might well rock the boat.

It's a system that evolved over many centuries, where power was gradually stripped away from the monarch, from absolute power to no power. The process began with Henry II, went through many phases including civil war. It's a peculiar system, but it also means we can never have a Trump type figure take control,whilst still having full democracy. If a reigning monarch was allowed to express a political opinion, it could well influence an election, and since they're not elected, that would distort democracy.