What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[derspiess]

In my experience, employees are routinely talked down to and ignored in meetings.  Don't see anything discrimination there.

You're assuming Meri is talking about the boss doing it.

I actually did that to her. But I stopped.

[jimmy olsen]

Good news friends! You're dream of working in a presidential administration is close to coming true!

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/trump-administration-desperate-help-stopped-asking-hires-professional-references-report/

Trump administration so desperate for help that it's stopped asking hires for professional references: report


Brad Reed
14 May 2018 at 09:10 ET         

The Trump administration has had trouble filling multiple key positions in the government — and now it's drastically lowering its hiring standards to get them filled.


The New Yorker reports that the Trump administration has stopped asking prospective hires for professional references when they apply for jobs, which the publication describes as part of a broader effort at lowering barriers to bringing new people aboard.

The report notes that the Obama administration "had used a questionnaire with sixty-three queries about employment, finances, writings, and social-media posts" before it hired people, and it says that the Trump administration has slashed the number of questions by more than half, while removing questions about "loans, personal income, and real-estate holdings."

The administration has also followed the president's own lead and is not asking prospective hires to show their tax returns, the report claims.

One source also tells the New Yorker that the administration has sought creative ways for hires to get around potential concerns about conflicts of interest so that they could work for the administration without relinquishing their current investments.

"If you look at them as technical rules that lawyers should be able to 'get around,' that gives you a whole different approach," one source explained. "It's like tweeting after a couple of beers. It's not going to end well."

 
         

[Sophie Scholl]

I don't think anyone here is corrupt enough or wealthy enough to qualify, Tim.

[Tamas]

[jimmy olsen]

Do we have a name for our child concentration camps yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html

[Zanza]

E.U. leader lights into Trump: 'With friends like that, who needs enemies?'

BRUSSELS — Even by the stressed standards of relations between Europe and the United States in the Trump era, European Council President Donald Tusk's Wednesday criticisms were unusually cutting.

At the outset of a summit of European leaders whose agenda items, point by point, have to do with the flames of crises that many Europeans see as ignited by President Trump, Tusk ripped into what he called "the capricious assertiveness of the American administration" over issues including Iran, Gaza, trade tariffs and North Korea.

In comments to reporters and a subsequent tweet, he suggested the White House had lost touch with reality. He said Europe didn't need enemies when it had friends like the United States. And he exhorted European leaders not to be reliant on Washington.

Just 16 months ago, such comments would have been unimaginable coming from an E.U. leader, whose continent modeled itself on the U.S. image in the aftermath of World War II. But Europeans are increasingly exasperated by the way Trump is steering U.S. policy, objecting not only to his stances but also to what they say is erratic policymaking that switches on the whim of Fox News programmers. The shifting desires make it nearly impossible to negotiate with the White House, many diplomats say, because they cannot strike a bargain to get close to what Trump wants when he doesn't know it himself.

Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland who now presides over one branch of E.U. policymaking, went full zen in his angry description of Trump's effect on Europe.

"Looking at the latest decisions of Donald Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Tusk told reporters in English ahead of a summit in Sofia, Bulgaria. "But, frankly speaking, Europe should be grateful by President Trump. Because, thanks to him, we got rid of all the illusions. He has made us realize that if you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm."

European leaders have scrambled to salvage the 2015 agreement in which Iran agreed to halt its nuclear program, a landmark deal that many Europeans see as essential for their security. Leaders on Wednesday plan to discuss whether to direct E.U. businesses to defy U.S. sanctions against Iran, an unusual measure with uncertain chances of success that would nevertheless be a diplomatic blow to Washington.

That came a day after many European newspapers featured dueling photographs on their front pages: the beaming visage of first daughter Ivanka Trump opening the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, and the smoky carnage an hour's drive away in Gaza, where scores of Palestinian protesters were killed by the Israeli military. The contrast has stirred up even more European anger toward Trump's foreign policy, and the Gaza violence is another mark on the agenda for European leaders to discuss during their day and a half of meetings that starts Wednesday.

Tusk's public comments on Wednesday also touched on the new U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum that are set to bite on June 1 unless Trump grants a reprieve. E.U. negotiators have said that as one of the closest trading partners of the United States, they will not make concessions with a gun to their head. There appears to have been little progress in those discussions. Tusk said Europe planned to stand its ground.

"We need to bring reality back to this discussion, which is not the case today," he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/16/e-u-leader-lights-into-trump-with-friends-like-that-who-needs-enemies/?utm_term=.010e9ac0470b

If you go back to the start of the thread, several people suggested that this exact thing would happen. Too bad it actually did. The end of the multilateral, rules-based world that America built in the postwar period is upon us.

[derspiess]

European leaders have scrambled to salvage the 2015 agreement in which Iran agreed to halt its nuclear program, a landmark deal that many Europeans see as essential for their security ability to make money from trading with a terrible, downright evil, regime. Leaders on Wednesday plan to discuss whether to direct E.U. businesses to defy U.S. sanctions against Iran, an unusual measure with uncertain chances of success that would nevertheless be a diplomatic blow to Washington.

Fixed.  There's an argument to be made for doing business with bad people, but let's at least be honest here.

[Berkut]

European leaders have scrambled to salvage the 2015 agreement in which Iran agreed to halt its nuclear program, a landmark deal that many Europeans see as essential for their security ability to make money from trading with a terrible, downright evil, regime. Leaders on Wednesday plan to discuss whether to direct E.U. businesses to defy U.S. sanctions against Iran, an unusual measure with uncertain chances of success that would nevertheless be a diplomatic blow to Washington.

Fixed.  There's an argument to be made for doing business with bad people, but let's at least be honest here.

That is horseshit.

The Iranian regime is no worse than many that the US is perfectly happy to do business with - this issue has nothing to do with Iran's status as a "horrible regime".

It is completely bullshit to claim that the motivations for those who are not interested in following US policy under Trump is not based on concerns about their security, but rather some nefarious desire to make cash of the oh so lucrative Iran trade.

That doesn't even make sense. Its not like Iran is such a uniquely profitable trading partner that the EU is falling all over itself to try to figure out some way to, what? Do exactly what the US agreed to do when it brokered the deal to begin with?

[Zanza]

Iran is Germany's 58th biggest trade partner, between Macedonia and Tunesia. Yugely important! We can make so much money there.

[Barrister]

That is horseshit.

The Iranian regime is no worse than many that the US is perfectly happy to do business with - this issue has nothing to do with Iran's status as a "horrible regime".

Umm, no.  Iran is much worse than many that the US does do business with.

It's a state sponsor of terror.  It is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  It is trying very hard to exert power outside its borders, with Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and Syria.

[Berkut]

That is horseshit.

The Iranian regime is no worse than many that the US is perfectly happy to do business with - this issue has nothing to do with Iran's status as a "horrible regime".

Umm, no.  Iran is much worse than many that the US does do business with.

Surely you are smart enough to realize that "no worse than many" and "worse than many" are perfectly compatible statements. Like Iran can be "now worse than" Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria, while bwing MUCH WORSE than, say, Ireland.

It's a state sponsor of terror.  It is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  It is trying very hard to exert power outside its borders, with Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and Syria.

Working to exert power outside their borders! What bastards!

The point here is that the issue under question is the deal the US made for a very specific reason.

You and spicey trotting out justification like this to bag on Europe for not lining up behind your Dead Leader Trump is crap.

[Zanza]

That is horseshit.

The Iranian regime is no worse than many that the US is perfectly happy to do business with - this issue has nothing to do with Iran's status as a "horrible regime".

Umm, no.  Iran is much worse than many that the US does do business with.

It's a state sponsor of terror.  It is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  It is trying very hard to exert power outside its borders, with Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and Syria.

Do you think Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal and establishing new sanctions makes Iran more or less cooperative on these three issues?

[grumbler]

Umm, no.  Iran is much worse than many that the US does do business with.

It's a state sponsor of terror.  It is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  It is trying very hard to exert power outside its borders, with Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and Syria.

So Iran is North Saudi Arabia?  Or is it South Russia?  East Turkey? Yeah, the Iranian government is despicable, but it isn't uniquely despicable.

[Malthus]

The problem as I see it is this: the merits of making the original deal in the first place are one thing - there is a legitimate debate about them.

The merits of the US pulling the plug on the deal after it was made are quite another.

We are not in the situation where we can go back in time and re-do the original deal. Really, even allowing for the sake of argument that the deal was crap, the damage the US is doing in pulling out of the deal at this point, without getting any consensus from its allies, appears to be far worse than simply continuing with it.

The sanctions were supposed to isolate the bad guy, Iran. The US is creating a situation where it is diplomatically isolating itself, to its detriment (and that of everyone else). 

[Barrister]

That is horseshit.

The Iranian regime is no worse than many that the US is perfectly happy to do business with - this issue has nothing to do with Iran's status as a "horrible regime".

Umm, no.  Iran is much worse than many that the US does do business with.

Surely you are smart enough to realize that "no worse than many" and "worse than many" are perfectly compatible statements. Like Iran can be "now worse than" Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria, while bwing MUCH WORSE than, say, Ireland.

Russia: allowed to have nuclear weapons under the NPT.  Is nonetheless the US's geopolitical foe #1.  And Russia of course is under an increasing number of US sanctions.

China: also allowed to have nukes.  Does not sponsor terrorism.  Does not try to project military force beyond it's border (noticeable asterisk for the south china sea, but still kind of a different situation).

Saudi Arabia: no nukes, no plans for nukes.  Not a state sponsor of terrorism.  Projection of military force is limited to Yemen.

Syria: a non-factor, being propped up by Russia and Iran.



By the way - you missed the #1 with a bullet best counter-example of Pakistan, which does have nukes and which does help sponsor terrorism (their buddies in the Taliban).  All I can say there is two wrongs don't make a right.