What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Syt]

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/08/revised-travel-ban-hawaii-legal-challenge-trump

Hawaii becomes first state to sue over Trump's revised travel ban

Hawaii has become the first state to file a lawsuit against Donald Trump's revised travel ban, saying the order will harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students.

Attorneys for the state filed the lawsuit against the US government on Wednesday in the federal court in Honolulu. The state had sued over Trump's initial travel ban, but that lawsuit was put on hold while other cases played out across the country.

Trump's new executive order, signed on Monday, bars new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and replaces an initial order issued on 27 January, which was chaotically rolled out and subsequently halted by a federal court following a barrage of legal challenges from states and advocate groups across the country.

The new order sought to alleviate some of these complaints by offering exemptions to lawful permanent US residents and current visa holders from the six countries – Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Syria and Libya – as well as staggering the timeframe of implementation.

But the state of Hawaii argues in an amended complaint that the new order remains incompatible with freedom of religion protections in both the state and federal constitutions, will harm the state's economy and educational institutions, and would prevent Hawaiians with family members in the six targeted countries from reuniting.

"Given that the new executive order began life as a 'Muslim ban', its implementation also means that the state will be forced to tolerate a policy that disfavours one religion and violates the establishment clauses of both the federal and state constitutions," the complaint states.

Hawaii's attorney general, Douglas Chin, said nothing of substance had changed in Trump's revised order. "There is the same blanket ban on entry from Muslim-majority countries (minus one) and the same sweeping shutdown of refugee admissions (absent one exception) and lawless warren of exceptions and waivers," Chin said.

"Hawaii is special in that it has always been non-discriminatory in both its history and constitution," he added said. "Twenty per cent of the people is foreign-born, 100,000 are non-citizens and 20% of the labour force is foreign-born."

Chin said people in Hawaii find the idea of a travel ban based on nationality distasteful because they remember when Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps during the second world war. Hawaii was the site of one of the camps. People in Hawaii know that the fear of newcomers can lead to bad policy, Chin said.

On Wednesday, Judge Derrick Watson granted the state permission to refile the amended motion for a new restraining order on Trump's second ban.

The government has been instructed to file a response to the motion by 13 March, with a date in court set for 15 March at 9.30am Hawaiian time, just hours before the second executive order will come into full force.

Imam Ismail Elshikh of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, a plaintiff in the state's challenge, said the ban will keep his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting. "The family is devastated," the filing said.

It remains unclear whether other states that challenged Trump's first ban will follow Hawaii's lead. The Washington state attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said on Monday he was "carefully reviewing" the new order. As of Wednesday morning, Ferguson had filed no new motions in the case.

The New York state attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, also said on Monday he was "closely reviewing the new order" but has yet to announce any further action.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said Hawaii's complaint seemed in many ways similar to Washington's successful lawsuit, but whether it would prompt a similar result was tough to say.

He said he expected the judge, an appointee of Barack Obama who was a longtime prosecutor, to be receptive to "at least some of it".

Given that the new executive order spells out more of a national security rationale than the old one and allows for some travellers from the six countries to be admitted on a case-by-case basis, it will be harder to show that the new order is intended to discriminate against Muslims, Tobias said.

"The administration's cleaned it up, but whether they have cleaned it up enough I don't know," he said. "It may be harder to convince a judge there's religious animus here."

Tobias also said it was good that Hawaii's lawsuit included an individual plaintiff, considering that some legal scholars have questioned whether the states themselves have standing to challenge the ban.

[derspiess]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/08/gender-reversed-presidential-debate-reve

Gender-Reversed Presidential Debate Reveals Trump's Allure to Clinton Voters
Organizers assumed swapping gender roles would show how unacceptable Trump's style would be in a woman.

[The Minsky Moment]

The second travel ban is on stronger legal footing than the first, because of the findings and recitals.  But IMO it is even more scandalous as policy.  The premise of the original order was that the suspension was needed so that the administration could carry out an expedited review of vetting procedures.  That was a total BS rationale, as the procedures were just recently overhauled and tightened.  But you would at least expect the new admin to *pretend* as if the rationale were legit.  But of course that fails to take into account that it is Trump that we are dealing with.  The original order required DHS to submit a report on the vetting procedures by Feb. 27.  That did not happen.  I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that virtually nothing was been done to review and improve the vetting procedures in the weeks that passed between order 1 and order 2.  Assuming that's the case one of the two things is true:
1) The entire premise of the order is a lie.
2) Trump admin is either intentionally endangering the safety of the American people, or is endangering them through gross negligence.

[alfred russel]

2) Trump admin is either intentionally endangering the safety of the American people, or is endangering them through gross negligence.

Aside from everything else, this is a given.

[The Minsky Moment]

If . .  we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by [socialistic] schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.

Important changes may also be traced to the effects of the mass media. The villains of the modern right are much more vivid than those of their paranoid predecessors, much better known to the public; the literature of the paranoid style is by the same token richer and more circumstantial in personal description and personal invective. For the vaguely delineated villains of the anti-Masons, for the obscure and disguised Jesuit agents, the little-known papal delegates of the anti-Catholics, for the shadowy international bankers of the monetary conspiracies, we may now substitute eminent public figures  . . .

Events . . .have given the contemporary right-wing paranoid a vast theatre for his imagination, full of rich and proliferating detail, replete with realistic cues and undeniable proofs of the validity of his suspicions . . . the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all.

The basic elements of contemporary right-wing thought can be reduced to three: First, there has been the now-familiar sustained conspiracy. . .. to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism

The second contention is that top government officialdom has been so infiltrated . . . that American policy . . . has been dominated by men who were shrewdly and consistently selling out American national interests.

Finally. . . the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans.

[Zanza]

Reminds me of the stab-in-the-back-myth of the early Weimar Republic.

[derspiess]

Well, Trump is literally Hitler, so...

[The Minsky Moment]

Reminds me of the stab-in-the-back-myth of the early Weimar Republic.

Quote is from 1963.  Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

So yes - nothing changes, the same vomit keeps coming back up the gullet of the body politic.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I recognized that.  It's a good read.  Fortunately the paranoid right didn't get the Presidency in 1964.

[Zanza]

Reminds me of the stab-in-the-back-myth of the early Weimar Republic.

Quote is from 1963.  Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

So yes - nothing changes, the same vomit keeps coming back up the gullet of the body politic.

I've got a similar one that you surely know:

Very few of us realise with conviction the intensely unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, temporary nature of the economic organisation by which Western Europe has lived for the last half century. We assume some of the most peculiar and temporary of our late advantages as natural, permanent, and to be depended on, and we lay our plans accordingly. On this sandy and false foundation we scheme for social improvement and dress our political platforms, pursue our animosities and particular ambitions, and feel ourselves with enough margin in hand to foster, not assuage, civil conflict in the European family.

[Barrister]

Forget about building the wall, or replacing Obamacare - will the Trump White House be able to pull off the annual Easter Egg Roll?

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a9685/trump-white-house-easter-egg-roll/

[The Minsky Moment]

Very few of us realise with conviction the intensely unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, temporary nature of the economic organisation by which Western Europe has lived for the last half century. We assume some of the most peculiar and temporary of our late advantages as natural, permanent, and to be depended on, and we lay our plans accordingly. On this sandy and false foundation we scheme for social improvement and dress our political platforms, pursue our animosities and particular ambitions, and feel ourselves with enough margin in hand to foster, not assuage, civil conflict in the European family.

Economic Consequences of the Peace I think.  Definitely Maynard.

[citizen k]

Reminds me of the stab-in-the-back-myth of the early Weimar Republic.

How is that a myth? Germany got screwed with the Versailles treaty.

[The Minsky Moment]

Reminds me of the stab-in-the-back-myth of the early Weimar Republic.

How is that a myth? Germany got screwed with the Versailles treaty.

That's not the stab-in-the-back.  The SITB myth was about the traitorous politicians snatching imminent victory from the valiant troops and steadfast generals with their craven surrender.