If the implication of this is that he’s been weak overall, I think he’s had a lot of great episodes. Doncathlon and Guardians of the Fallacy immediately came to mind.
I’m not a con-law expert but I could envision it being constitutionally valid within a certain time frame. Naturalization involves providing truthful statements about a person’s background and is predicated on the assumption of loyalty to the United States, which is probably the legal premise on which DHS will try to defend itself against legal challenges. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if, say, DHS wanted to monitor accounts for a year or two after receiving naturalization just to make sure that someone didn’t bullshit their way through the system. But there have to be limits somewhere. I’m just wondering the degree to which the original sources actually did their homework on this article. Just looking at naturalized citizens and giving them extra scrutiny is probably constitutional, but they can’t be treated as a second class into perpetuity.
Bannon 1
Trump 0
Notch another one for white christian nationalism.
Or he could use his powers as Commander in Chief to distract us with a national emergency (North Korea, perhaps) that would give him a lot more real power. Bannon’s desire to elevate the profile of White Christian Nationalism just got an important victory last night, and it puts the pressure on Trump to pay attention to his strongest base of support.
Trump cannot survive through moderation and expanding his appeal to moderates; he can only continue to exist as an extremist. That is what got him power in the first place. He cannot win with adapting to constitutional and institutional norms that are expected of the usual occupier of that high office, that no man is greater than the Constitution, no man is higher than the law. Robert Mueller’s investigation exemplifies how these norms operate. Trump is endangered by such norms. He can only survive if he eliminates renders the Constitution and the institutions that support it impotent.
If it were just Trump we had to worry about, there wouldn’t be a need to worry. But there are a lot of other extremists in this country who also carry with them a sense of urgency. They sense a window of opportunity through which they can exit the present and go back to the country’s racist and socially inequitable past. Extremists seek out other extremists because they need each other. That’s where we’re at now.
Meanwhile, Trump the protectionist continues to throw knees to the crotch of our “allies” – Canada and the UK in this case.
Protectionism is another tool of authoritarians. Protect national businesses and then use that power to make domestic manufacturers more loyal to the Trump administration.
I can’t open the link to the story at work, but the post you were responding to mentioned social media, not Twitter specifically. If they were to monitor someone’s Facebook who had the security setting enabled so it wasn’t public, but they were still able to monitor it, would that be un-constitutional?
I don’t even know if DHS has the ability to circumvent the security on social media accounts and monitor then regardless of the settings (for some reason I have a feeling this would be rather trivial for them to accomplish), I was just curious if this would change your take on the constitutionality of the operation.
Again, I cannot read the story in the link so it very well may have only mentioned Twitter rather than social media in general, and if so then please disregard.
Yup, you might say protectionism is the first step to running a protection racket.
Yeah, the proposed tariff (roughly 220%?) on C-series airliners seems rather excessive. The Commerce Department is contending that the real cost of one of the Bombardier airliners would really be more than triple the advertised price, if not for government subsidies? Seems doubtful.
Not to mention that Boeing has no competing aircraft in the CS100’s size class 100-110 seats). The follow-on CS300 would encroach into the 737 class, but that’s apparently not what’s at issue here.
I’m not much of a business expert, but wouldn’t the people managing the enterprise have primary responsibility for it going bankrupt? Assuming the owners weren’t excessively meddling?
Now this is apparently being said by someone who’s running a federal law enforcement agency, no less. Given the fact that Trump demands loyalty, I’d say this is pretty sobering stuff. I kinda wish he had stayed and fought the good fight, but if Trump fired Comey, he surely knew that he wouldn’t last long, either.
Trump just hadn’t fired him yet. He’s been the acting director since 2015, so he’s really more of an Obama guy than a Trump guy.
Calling career civil servants “Obama guys” is misleading, a disservice to the person in question, and gives justification to the right for purging competent people that aren’t down for destroying the government. I really dislike the media using that sort of label for people that worked in government while Obama was there, but weren’t political appointees. Rosenberg was in government since H. W. Bush was president.
But he has been acting as director since 2015. In Trump’s tiny, orange mind, that makes him an Obama man.
I’m not talking about Trump’s mind, I’m talking about how these people are talked about in the media and by everyday people. Lots of people will read an article about how an “Obama guy” thinks Trump doesn’t care about the law and think “yeah, of course he hates Trump, he’s a dirty Obama lackey” which is as far from true as possible. It’s a disservice to the general discourse.
The news stories I’ve read haven’t divulged Mr. Rosenberg’s employment history; I have no idea how he got the job of acting director. Thanks for the clarification.
However, I stand by my characterization: since he was made acting director while Obama was president, he was most definitely going to be seen by Trump as having ties to Obama as opposed to having ties to Trump, especially where the question of loyalty Trump, which is what the post I was replying to was about, comes into play.
Dear America,
Can you please remove Trump from office now? It isn’t funny anymore. Thanks!
Sincerely,
The World (except maybe Kim Jong Un and Putin)
Funny? It’s not supposed to be funny.
It’s supposed to be smelly.
Well, it certainly smells funny.
Agree.
Apart from the very top level, the political appointees, government workers are not Obama guys or Trump guys or Bush guys or Nixon guys even.
Presidents come and go. The rank and file remains, and by law (the Hatch Act) are required to be as Unpolitical as humanly possible.
So no, there is no there, there. If anything, it is a deliberate distortion of facts for political gain and for spite when people do it.
You would think so.
"We ran this outfit into the ground but it’s someone else’s fault (because reasons?).