Donald Trump

[merjet]

20 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I interpreted Bannon's meaning the way Michael does.

My post wasn't about Bannon.

[Ellen Stuttle]

17 minutes ago, merjet said:

My post wasn't about Bannon.

Merlin, come on, you are playing word games.  You picked up "demolition" and "wrecking ball" from my post and applied my remark to budget issues when those issues aren't what I was talking about, and I think aren't what Bannon, to whose deconstruction remark I was referring, was talking about.  Serious damage could be done to the administrative state without the net spending in the budget being different.  Depends on where the money is spent.

Ellen

[merjet]

Ellen, it's you playing word games. I made it very clear I was posting about Trump. Then you replied agreeing with MSK about Bannon. If that is all you were doing, then it was completely unnecessary to quote me in your post. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, merjet said:

Ellen, it's you playing word games. I made it very clear I was posting about Trump. Then you replied agreeing with MSK about Bannon. If that is all you were doing, then it was completely unnecessary to quote me in your post. 

Merlin,

You quoted Ellen.

In your zeal to be right at all costs, you are starting to show signs of not remembering what you wrote.

6 hours ago, merjet said:

 

18 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

How about "demolition"?

Bring out the wrecking ball!

I wouldn't call Trump's proposal to increase military spending $54 billion offset by $54 billion spending cuts elsewhere anything close to "demolition" or "using a wrecking ball" (link).

Trump added, "We're going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people."

Spending neutral is not "doing more with less" nor does it "make the government lean and accountable". His claim is mere hyperbole -- like much of what he says. 

Ellen had quoted me. Here is what she was commenting on.

18 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

On 2/23/2017 at 4:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bannon said President Trump's agenda is "deconstruction of the administrative state."

Progressives are going to have to open one more definition for deconstructionism in their dictionaries. I don't think Bannon's meaning will have anything to do with postmodernism.

Michael

How about "demolition"?

Bring out the wrecking ball!

Do as you wish, but this is too obvious to claim it isn't what it looks like just so you can pretend to be right.

And if you don't think it's necessary for her to quote you, why on earth do you think it's necessary for you to quote her?

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 2/23/2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bannon said President Trump's agenda is "deconstruction of the administrative state."

Let a hundred definitions bloom!

I don't associate deconstruction of The Administrative State [Wikipedia] with anything but the facial meaning. Wrecking ball, demolition, implosion, whatever, carry a nice dramatic throb. What Objectivist or Objectivish person will not thrill to the idea of a smaller state footprint on the neck of individuals?

Quote

By Source, Fair use, Link

The Administrative State is Dwight Waldo's classic "public administration" text based on a dissertation written at Yale in which Waldo argues that democratic states are underpinned by professional and political bureaucracies and that scientific management and efficiency is not the core idea of government bureaucracy, but rather it is service to the public. The work has contributed to the structure and theory of government bureaucracies the world over and is one of the defining works of public administration and political science written in the last 75 years.

Published in 1948 and later reissued in a second edition with an extensively revised introduction by Waldo.

Here's a cued-up moment from the CPAC video, where Bannon explores the question, "What is 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State'?"

For those who like sassy commentary, here's an article from the Liberty Law site, "The Administrative State, Once More: What’s Law But a Second-Hand Devotion?"

Quote

The hallmark of the administrative state is a power once known as “prerogative”—that is, the power to make binding rules without law, outside the law, or against the law, exercised by someone other than an elected legislature. John Locke understood that royal power, and was against it. The founders understood it, and they wrote an entire Constitution to suppress it. All legislative powers granted in  the Constitution are vested in the Congress, and nowhere else. Except, evidently,  when they’re vested in the Federal Communications Commission, or some other three-letter outfit. There’s the problem. 

[...]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the administrative state. Administrative state, meet America’s youth.  And please assure them that everything is in good legal order. Because it sure doesn’t look that way.

Here are a few other contemporary articles on The Administrative State and the President's right-hand man:

Yes, Deconstruct the Administrative State

Understanding The Administrative State

“The Administrative State,” What’s That?

Down with the Administrative State

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by william.scherk
De-borked the cued-up video

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I interpreted Bannon's meaning the way Michael does.

Ellen,

Today, President Trump signed an Executive Order limiting the EPA's water regulations to navigable waterways. And in his signing speech, he made it clear he understood the role of the Federal Government to be appropriate only when such navigable waterways are interstate.

This is called one more instance of " deconstruction of the administrative state."  (The devil icon is obviously not aimed at you, but merely put there for your enjoyment re the tenor of this discussion by other posters.  )

The progressive press is already howling, saying Trump is attacking clean water.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Trump grades himself a 'C' for communicating

 

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Today, President Trump signed an Executive Order limiting the EPA's water regulations to navigable waterways. And in his signing speech, he made it clear he understood the role of the Federal Government to be appropriate only when such navigable waterways are interstate.

The executive order has not yet appeared on the White House's website**, but his remarks are already available in text form: Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Executive Order

Quote

 

The EPA’s so-called “Waters of the United States” rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land. It's prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they're supposed to be doing. It's been a disaster.

The Clean Water Act says that the EPA can regulate “navigable waters” -- meaning waters that truly affect interstate commerce. But a few years ago, the EPA decided that “navigable waters” can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer's land, or anyplace else that they decide -- right? It was a massive power grab. The EPA’s regulators were putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands, and regulations and permits started treating our wonderful small farmers and small businesses as if they were a major industrial polluter. They treated them horribly. Horribly.

[...]

With today’s executive order, I’m directing the EPA to take action, paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule.

So I want to thank everybody for being here. And I will sign wherever I'm supposed to sign. There we are. Thank you very much.

 

I'll post the WOTUS order when it appears.

For background on the controversial Obama-era rule, the text is at EPA site, and an overview here, from Vox.  A few orienting paragraphs from the Vox article:

Quote

Now Donald Trump wants to roll back the rule — as a first step in his efforts to dismantle various Obama-era EPA protections. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order that asks new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to begin the long process of repealing the rule and replacing it with... something else.

Except here’s the catch: Rolling back this rule won’t be easy to do. By law, Pruitt has to go through the years-long federal rulemaking process and replace the Obama-era regulation with his own version — and then defend it in court as legally superior. And, as Pruitt’s about to find out, figuring out which bodies of water deserve protection is a maddeningly complex task that could take years and years.

What the Waters of the US rule actually does

To understand this rule, we need to go back to 1972, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act. That law features dozens of regulations for anyone discharging pollution into the “waters of the United States” that could affect human health or aquatic life.

For instance, under the law, a facility storing oil that could leak needs to prepare a spill prevention plan aimed at minimizing discharges. If the facility is far away from any “waters of the United States,” however, it doesn’t face these requirements.

Now here’s the tricky part. The Clean Water Act doesn’t precisely define what “waters of the United States” means. That’s left to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. And it’s a hard question. For instance, the law is clear that major navigable rivers and lakes and connected waterways should be protected. But what about waterways that are only loosely connected? What about streams that are dry for part of the year but then connect when it rains? Any pollution dumped into those waterways could affect downstream ecosystems. Should they be regulated?

In the 2000s, this uncertainty led to a pair of Supreme Court decisions that only ended up creating more bewilderment. In a split decision in Rapanos v. United States in 2006, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Clean Water Act protections applied to wetlands that “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters.” But Justice Antonin Scalia argued that protections only applied to wetlands "with a continuous surface connection" to navigable water — a far smaller number of wetlands. And it wasn’t totally clear which opinion took precedence.

** Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters of the United States" Rule

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by william.scherk
Added link to the White House EO on WOTUS

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump at joint session of Congress tonight.

Here's the text and video (from The Hill) for those who missed it and want to see it.

FULL SPEECH: President Trump's address to a joint session of Congress

He killed it.

He even got the Democrats to stand up in applause at times. (At others, they were not amused, but hey...  )

Michael

[anthony]

Excellent speech and stabilizing also, I thought.

[Peter]

Michael wrote: He killed it. end quote

I was watching “Victoria” episodes II and III but I tuned into the very end of President Trump’s speech. Melania and those two, “mature” secret service agents looked a bit wary, but then I heard the Demoncrats left as soon as Trump said his last words. Maybe the Demons were going to their favorite Democrat Bar to get sloshed with their buddies. It reminded me of the TV show, “Sole Survivor.” Were the Democrats co-conspirators, and were they leaving early to avoid the terrorist bomb blast that they knew was about to occur??? Or just going to get a beer and sing rugby songs?   

Violence did not occur but Pelosi is still trying to gather support for President Trump’s impeachment. Obama is still coordinating with his “community organizer” buddies and George Soro’s “Nazi Brown Shirts.” Free speech? Si, Senor. Free violence? No Senor. I will read the transcript tomorrow.

The Fox commentators including Krauthammer were inspired by who knows . . . maybe . . . the best President ever.

Peter  

[KorbenDallas]

I just watched it, I think people are being relative.  I mean, compared to his last rally where he dressed like a Miami Vice villain and yelled what's in his teleprompter, I guess it was 'good'.  On Foxnews Chris Wallace said Trump became POTUS tonight, separately on CNN Van Jones said the same thing, but with tears in his eyes.  We'll see how long Trump can hold onto this 'presidential' thing, he might even get an approval number bump from it.  By itself, it's just an average speech appropriate for the venue.

[Brant Gaede]

Compared to whose speeches?

I'm not saying good or bad or "average"--he put on a good appearance with a good voice. Then I hit mute. I don't listen to these addresses to Congress much less to the countering palaver following. Looks like the equity markets are liking it.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Compared to whose speeches?

I'm not saying good or bad or "average"--he put on a good appearance with a good voice. Then I hit mute. I don't listen to these addresses to Congress much less to the countering palaver following. Looks like the equity markets are liking it.

--Brant

He was being "presidential".  The liberals are still sticking pins in his effigy.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Compared to whose speeches?

I'm not saying good or bad or "average"--he put on a good appearance with a good voice. Then I hit mute. I don't listen to these addresses to Congress much less to the countering palaver following. Looks like the equity markets are liking it.

--Brant

Hey you guys have seen it all, for me it's still an amazing spectacle. Albeit I'm the least political animal, anywhere. Each of these men and women is the Representative of half a million people in the freest country of all! On top of policy changes we've quickly learned the President does not merely talk about, the high point for me was "evil" passing presidential lips. Finally, a leader calling it for what it is.

[turkeyfoot]

For an attentive deficient personality, he nailed it. Actually it was Steven Miller who did it. He was channeled well.

Talking heads compared it to Reagan. The difference was Reagan could have written his own.

Dems want someone who gives the appearance of being presidential. And who gives and takes, the art of the deal compromise.

I couldnt care less how he sounds just that I see the money. Show me.

I still believe Trump care has no qualitative difference (on paper) to ACA. Trump provides for existing conditions and children up to 26 etc etc. He aligns with Dems on these points and asks for mobile insurance across state boundaries, cheaper better health care. Eh. Anyone read it??

All of this hand wringing and back slapping can wait until it is delivered. IF

In one sense his stance at this point has me realizing just how much of America the last presidents gave away and the distance America must travel to reach mediocre. MAMA!

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Compared to whose speeches?

I'm not saying good or bad or "average"--he put on a good appearance with a good voice. Then I hit mute. I don't listen to these addresses to Congress much less to the countering palaver following. Looks like the equity markets are liking it.

--Brant

Grading Trump on his own merits probably an 'A', but comparing to say, Reagan or Obama, a 'C'.  Trump isn't in the same league as these two.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Three points about President Trump's message to the joint houses of Congress last night.

 

1. Messaging

Yesterday morning on Fox and Friends, President Trump graded himself with an A+ on effort, but a C or C+ on messaging--see here. From that article (and video):

Quote

"I think I've done great things, but I don't think I and my people have explained it well enough to the American public," Trump said, adding that "my messaging isn't good."

. . .

He was then asked how he'd try to change the issues with delivering his message. 

"Maybe I change it during [tonight's] speech," he answered.

From the general response to his speech last night, he vastly improved his grade. I could cite a source or hundred, but it's all over the news.

Even Chris Wallace of Fox said: "It was one of the best speeches in that setting I've heard any president give," (see here).

One of the best.

Of any president.

This coming from Chris Wallace, who has seen decades of speeches. Brit Hume said something similar. These are not Hannity-like in their opinions of the president.

If they think that, imagine how many other serious journalists and serious political intellectuals do.

On the Republican side alone, President Trump made it real hard to be an anti-Trumper. Each member of Congress has to be elected and the Republican voters liked what they heard--and they liked it a lot.

 

2. The Crack

Some of President Trump's opponents were still snarling at him, but I expected more bite to go with the snarl. 

The most interesting fact to me is not what each individual said, but the big beautiful crack that has appeared in the dam of President Trump's opposition (some of which was mentioned above). To wit:

• Van Jones at CNN gushed over President Trump saying he's now the president. Calling the moment with the widow of slain Navy SEAL, Ryan Owens "one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics," Van Jones went on to add, "If he finds a way to do that over and over again, he's going to be there for eight years." (See here.)
   
• Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks grudgingly gave President Trump praise--with a worm in the apple, of course, but this was waaaaaaaay out of character for Cenk. Up to now, Uygur has always preferred the aggressive character assassination approach to covering Trump, even during the election trying to brand him as "Loser Trump" (and variations of that) in countless reports. Generally he calls Trump a clown. But not this time. See his YouTube video called Best Trump Speech Ever.
   
• Chris Matthews of MSNBC said Trump's economic nationalism is working and made some other favorable comments about the speech (see here).

There's more out there, but the nature and prominence of these three shows the size of the crack. We can expect this crack to widen as time goes on. So while it's fun to snarl, wouldn't it be better for the snarlers if important members of their own team weren't walking away?

But wait! There's more!

• On the Democratic response side, no less than Rachel Maddow blasted the hell out of former Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear's response, saying: "When you do something stunty and small like this, it looks stunty and small." (See here.) I can't imagine her saying something like that against a featured Democrat before President Trump's speech. And if President Trump had bombed, I can't imagine her saying what she did.

 

3. Celebrity Apprentice

It's funny seeing the celebs coming out now saying they could be president, too. I think President Trump's speech is shooing them out of the woodwork. Celebrities have yuuuuuuuge egos, even if they don't show them off in public like the president. I know many of them feel like they are superior to Donald Trump. So seeing him getting standing ovations over and over from both houses of Congress must be a pisser.

Here are a few non-politician celebrities who are growing a presidential run itch:

• Mark Cuban has been so envious of President Trump for so long, his posture is nothing new. At one time during the campaign, he even offered both Trump and Clinton to run as their Vice President. A couple of weeks ago, his comments prompted the president to tweet that Cuban is not smart enough to run for president.  There's just too much material to choose from.
   
• Disney CEO Bob Iger is floating an idea of running for president. (See here.)
   
• But the biggie is none other than Oprah herself.
  
  President Winfrey? Oprah says in the age of Trump that she could run for the White House despite being unqualified for the job

 

There are undoubtedly a lot more who are laying low right now. The three above are thinking of running as Democrats.

I sure hope one of them does in 2020. I would love to hear President Trump say after the election, "You're fired."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - The DOW popped the 21,000 mark today for the first time ever.

What happened yesterday that might have influenced this? 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the general response to his speech last night, he vastly improved his grade. I could cite a source or hundred, but it's all over the news.

And a picture helps give the idea.

Priceless. pic.twitter.com/LzEBicYijt

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 1, 2017

 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

By itself, it's just an average speech appropriate for the venue.

I'm judging using principles and standards learned from a (very) tough university public speaking course I took.  I doubt the professor would give Trump a good grade, either.  Likely a 'C'.  He has trouble with some basics.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - The DOW popped the 21,000 mark today for the first time ever.

What happened yesterday that might have influenced this? 

Michael

Is that related to the fact that our money supply is being inflated?

[anthony]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Grading Trump on his own merits probably an 'A', but comparing to say, Reagan or Obama, a 'C'.  Trump isn't in the same league as these two.

It is precisely his rawness which appeals - in the era of the smooth-talking, camera-ready politician.

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - The DOW popped the 21,000 mark today for the first time ever.

What happened yesterday that might have influenced this? 

Michael

Speculation? 

Portfolios are worth only what you can sell them for not for what they represent on paper. To make money calculate share value-15% (capital gains tax)= your loss/gain. It would not be rational to make assumptions over the trajectory of the market unless the approach is to play it safe.

Annual Returns for Selected Asset Classes
2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Real Estate 35.97%	Emerging Markets 39.82%	Bonds 5.24%	MLPs 85.05%	Precious Metals 35.95%	MLPs 16.99%	Emerging Markets 18.63%	Small Cap Stocks 38.82%	Real Estate 31.78%	Real Estate 4.48%	Energy 27.36%
MLPs 34.92%	Energy 34.40%	Precious Metals -28.84%	Emerging Markets 79.02%	MLPs 34.98%	Real Estate 9.24%	Foreign Stocks 17.90%	Mid Cap Stocks 34.76%	Large Cap Stocks 13.69%	Large Cap Stocks 1.38%	Small Cap Stocks 21.31%
Emerging Markets 32.55%	Precious Metals 25.27%	Small Cap Stocks -33.79%	Mid Cap Stocks 40.48%	Real Estate 28.60%	Bonds 7.84%	Real Estate 17.59%	Large Cap Stocks 32.39%	Mid Cap Stocks 13.22%	Bonds 0.55%	MLPs 18.31%
Foreign Stocks 26.86%	Foreign Stocks 11.63%	Energy -34.87%	Precious Metals 37.58%	Small Cap Stocks 26.85%	Energy 4.72%	Mid Cap Stocks 17.28%	MLPs 29.48%	MLPs 7.61%	Foreign Stocks -0.81%	Mid Cap Stocks 13.80%
Energy 24.21%	MLPs 11.30%	Large Cap Stocks -37.00%	Foreign Stocks 32.46%	Mid Cap Stocks 25.48%	Large Cap Stocks 2.11%	Small Cap Stocks 16.35%	Energy 25.07%	Bonds 5.97%	Mid Cap Stocks -2.44%	Large Cap Stocks 11.96%
Small Cap Stocks 18.37%	Bonds 6.97%	MLPs -38.55%	Real Estate 28.60%	Energy 20.46%	Mid Cap Stocks -1.55%	Large Cap Stocks 16.00%	Foreign Stocks 23.29%	Small Cap Stocks 4.89%	Small Cap Stocks -4.41%	Emerging Markets 11.19%
Large Cap Stocks 15.79%	Mid Cap Stocks 5.60%	Real Estate -39.20%	Small Cap Stocks 27.17%	Emerging Markets 19.20%	Small Cap Stocks -4.18%	Energy 4.61%	Real Estate 1.86%	Emerging Markets -1.82%	Emerging Markets -14.92%	Precious Metals 9.66%
Mid Cap Stocks 15.26%	Large Cap Stocks 5.49%	Mid Cap Stocks -41.46%	Large Cap Stocks 26.46%	Large Cap Stocks 15.06%	Foreign Stocks -11.73%	Bonds 4.21%	Bonds -2.02%	Foreign Stocks -4.48%	Energy -21.12%	Real Estate 6.68%
Precious Metals 9.87%	Small Cap Stocks -1.57%	Foreign Stocks -43.06%	Energy 13.82%	Foreign Stocks 8.21%	Precious Metals -17.35%	MLPs 4.21%	Emerging Markets -2.27%	Energy -7.78%	Precious Metals -31.15%	Bonds 2.65%
Bonds 4.33%	Real Estate -17.55%	Emerging Markets -53.18%	Bonds 5.93%	Bonds 6.54%	Emerging Markets -18.17%	Precious Metals -12.76%	Precious Metals -36.48%	Precious Metals -22.01%	MLPs -37.14%	Foreign Stocks 1.00%

 

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And a picture helps give the idea.

 

Priceless. pic.twitter.com/LzEBicYijt

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 1, 2017

 

Michael

rs ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the general response to his speech last night, he vastly improved his grade. I could cite a source or hundred, but it's all over the news.

Thats been my belief. His twitter mouth was silent. That silence is golden. Maybe Conway can engineer a theft of his phone and a reorder would take a week. Presidential for a week or less.