Trump Administration Kills Open.Gov, Will Not Release White House Visitor Logs (techdirt.com) 268
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: It will never be said that the Trump presidency began with a presumption of openness. His pre-election refusal to release his tax returns set a bit of precedent in that regard. The immediate post-election muffling of government agency social media accounts made the administration's opacity goals um clearer. So, in an unsurprising move, the Trump administration will be doing the opposite of the Obama administration. The American public will no longer have the privilege of keeping tabs on White House visitors. TIME reports: "The Trump Administration will not disclose logs of those who visit the White House complex, breaking with his predecessor, the White House announced Friday. White House communications director Michael Dubke said the decision to reverse the Obama-era policy was due to 'the grave national security risks and privacy concerns of the hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.' Instead, the Trump Administration is relying on a federal court ruling that most of the logs are 'presidential records' and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act." So, to further distance himself from the people he serves (and the people who elected him), Trump and his administration have shut down the transparency portal put in place by the previous Commander-in-Chief: "White House officials said the Administration is ending the contract for Open.gov, the Obama-era site that hosted the visitor records along with staff financial disclosures, salaries, and appointments. An official said it would save $70,000 through 2020 and that the removed disclosures, salaries and appointments would be integrated into WhiteHouse.gov in the coming months."
Open.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone feel it was ever "open" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much
People focus on "OH LOL 70K saved its nothing" which is true.
But the reality is why would you spent anyone's time on something that isn't actually useful other than to create a false illusion of openness? Might as well not...
Now I'd rather it would actually be open, but if they're not able to do it genuinely I'm happy that they stop doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
But the reality is why would you spent anyone's time on something that isn't actually useful other than to create a false illusion of openness? Might as well not...
Besides, them logs are probably sour anyways. And dissonant. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos for insulting them both. Ad hominems should be fair and balanced ;-)
Re:Open.gov (Score:4, Informative)
The Obama administration released the visitors log in its entirety.
Here it is, in csv format.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, left off the link. Here you go:
https://obamawhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
http://pamelageller.com/2013/0... [pamelageller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I have no problem
Re: (Score:2)
Boehner isn't President.
Re:Once again, Hillary did not win. (Score:4, Informative)
No ties to Russia? So those bank loans and all the rest don't count? I think Trump has a bridge to sell to you if you are that gullible.
Re:Once again, Hillary did not win. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the uranium deal regarding Russia’s nuclear power agency when it bought a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company? Which owns mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium)? When Clinton was secretary of state, but didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal and the State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it? That uranium "scandal"? [politifact.com]
I tried to look up "Clinton campaign contributions" [google.com]. But mostly got Breitbart and FoxNews.....oh! and the ever accurate "shadowproof.com"
Of course Trump doesn't have annnny connections to Russia except "ornate gold" - I think in particular he FBI, NSA, CIA and both House and Senate Intelligence committees are investigating this love, in fact. Nothing at all there....probably
Re:Once again, Hillary did not win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, as the politifact link says, despite purchasing the extraction rights as part of a larger deal, they they never acquired export rights. So all that uranium was never at risk of leaving the US anyway.
But holy shit the lies about that so-called scandal are deafening. Almost like there was a vast conspiracy to bamboozle the american public.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, as the politifact link says, despite purchasing the extraction rights as part of a larger deal, they they never acquired export rights. So all that uranium was never at risk of leaving the US anyway.
Likely they bought it for the interest in the Kazakhstan. You see, Kazakhstan is number 1 exporter of uranium. All other countries have inferior uranium.
Re: Once again, Hillary did not win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it makes it a shitty plan. Someone like Dubya makes sense. He's not bright, but he's predictable. Trump might change his mind 4 or 5 times during a staff meeting, or even a few times within a single sentence.
Anybody who isn't a moron can plainly see that the Russian agenda is far more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Putin has reasons to be agains
Coal Mines unusable... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know Trump wants all the coal jobs back - but I'd think it would be hard to get back in the mines, with all these dead canaries piled up everywhere.
I'd call these warning signs of horrors to come - but the man has always been the living symbol of arrogance and greed, and if anyone didn't expect exactly the raw ineptitude and pride in that ineptitude that we're getting, I'd be amazed.
Republicans claim that Government can't solve any problems, and then make it their solemn job to prove that at every opportunity, and Trump is the latest in growing line of leaders exemplifying that determined inability to provide basic governance while wasting endless amounts of resources.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, mining is gradually being automated. The conveyor carts and trucks will probably be the first to be automated, some already so.
There's also progress in direct dirt-and-rock mining bots. Although they use some AI, they are also assisted remotely for the times the AI gets confused. One remote operator can assist several bots.
Blaming lopsided trade deals with other countries for job loss has some merit, but is a fading threat compared to automation. T is fighting yesterday's battle.
Hey guess how automation gets installed (Score:2)
Plus, mining is gradually being automated.
That sounds like a LOT of jobs right there, perfect to transition a lot of miners into retirement.
Looks like Trump was right again, mining jobs are coming back after all.
Not to mention that now China is buying a lot more coal [washingtonexaminer.com] from the U.S. than they were prior to Trump.
Trump Trump Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean. Engineering and technician jobs?
Sigh. That's not how this works. That's not how ANY of this works.
Come back when you know how the hell things get built and installed. Like anything physical across the entire planet... you have lived in your sheltered bubble for far too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal mining automation has gone will past actual mining coal. The big push is to inject reactive fluids into the coal seams to generate gas, which is quite problematic as it tends to go all over the place, including setting rivers on fire but the labour force shrinks to practically nothing and they can hide the pollution generated behind lawyers and main stream media (unlike the visible mess a coal mine generations or the resultant ashes produced by burning coal, instead all the toxic side affects are burie
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't. He just wants us all to think he does. As always he just wants attention. Those jobs are gone just like the steelmaking jobs since there is no market for overpriced coal or overpriced steel. They cannot compete with new operations that do things effectively instead of the way things were done in the 1950s. Even Trump knows this, but he doesn't care - if he makes enough noise it makes him look like he's bringing the jobs back, and when it doesn't happ
But... her emails? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know Trump wants all the coal jobs back - but I'd think it would be hard to get back in the mines, with all these dead canaries piled up everywhere.
I'd call these warning signs of horrors to come - but the man has always been the living symbol of arrogance and greed, and if anyone didn't expect exactly the raw ineptitude and pride in that ineptitude that we're getting, I'd be amazed.
Republicans claim that Government can't solve any problems, and then make it their solemn job to prove that at every opportunity, and Trump is the latest in growing line of leaders exemplifying that determined inability to provide basic governance while wasting endless amounts of resources.
I wholeheartedly agree. The big question is how to get out of this quagmire? As far as I can see, the election of Trump is just the culmination of decades of deliberate mishandling of the one things that makes democracy work: education. The part of the population that needs better education and better chances in life, has been abandoned by the road side at least since Reagan, and instead been fed a diet of shallow soundbites about 'freedom' that wasn't really freedom at all. The ability to think critically
Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Informative)
"Mr. Trump’s policy is a return to the one followed by presidents who preceded Mr. Obama." (NYT). No mention of that in the summary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FTFY.
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
There were three past presidents that could reasonably be expected to have a transparency website. Clinton is arguably grandfathered in because he largely predated mainstream internet usage. Dubya is a war criminal, so that leaves Obama, who had a decent but very much inadequate start.
We should be very insistent that transparency is a one-way ratchet, as sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
""Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s policy is a return to the one followed by presidents who preceded Mr. Obama." (NYT). No mention of that in the summary."
vs
" White House communications director Michael Dubke said the decision to reverse the Obama-era policy..."
Hints: "the Obama-era policy" means a policy introduced in the Obama administration.
And if Trump had created a completely new policy, it would not have been a 'reversal'. A reversal of direction implies going back where you came from.
It should be fairly reasonable to anyone without a bag of hammers standing in for a brain that *reversing* a policy Obama instituted defaults to a return to the previous policy. aka ... the policy followed by presidents who preceded Obama.
Yes, its not as explicit as coming out and saying it, but its a SUMMARY, if it included every explicit detail of the full article it would not be a summary. So the summary implied a detail that was made explicit in the full article... so what was your problem?
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
with the way people are getting blacklisted for even meeting with trump or his team it makes perfect sense on why they wouldnt want to let that info out
Re: (Score:2)
Not as stupid as it sounds when it's looking like we are going into full crony capitalism territory.
I think we are going to see a lot of scams like the Lockheed Joint Strike Fighter happening.
Blacklisted? (Score:2, Insightful)
What you're doing is a classic right wing technique: divert attention with a straw man argument. The question I have is: Do you know you're doing it or are you just repeating something you picked up online or from talk radio? If the former, stop it. Best case scenario you're lowering the q
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're that much of a coward to not suffer the consequences of your actions, what else are you trying to hide?
Why does this have a familiar ring to it? Oh, yeah. It's the essence of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, why is your privacy so important to you" argument.
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
When you become president you give up some privacy in exchange for a huge amount of power. That power must be scrutinized by the electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
When you become president you give up some privacy in exchange for a huge amount of power. That power must be scrutinized by the electorate.
Some, or all? Or just most? Or just everything everyone decides they want at any time?
Re: (Score:3)
"some" clearly does not mean "all". Basic English.
The people you meet at your official government residency seems like a reasonable thing to divulge.
Transparency of public officials (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the essence of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, why is your privacy so important to you" argument.
The salient difference being that privacy is to be enjoyed in abundance by citizens qua private individuals, but should to be afforded only sparingly to public officials qua public officials. Transparency, not privacy, is the the expectation we should have of government.
History shows that the privacy enjoyed by individual citizens is inversely proportional to the privacy government officials are permitted in the exercise of their power.
It becomes a non concern w/ the DNC (Score:2)
Laughing at the modbombers.
you're that much of a coward to not suffer the consequences of your actions, what else are you trying to hide?
Then the media can be as open as well. Given their campaign to destroy anyone and anything in the way of their narrative, it can be safe to say that they can no longer be assumed to be good or impartial.
The excuses from the con artist administration are just that, excuses.
The Obama administration left office on January 21st, 2017. On the other hand, they seem to want to keep a Soviet-like iron grip on power through the rioters, media, and DNC faithful.
The swamp keeps filling
You might want to wake up and check the date. Also note that the media have turned back from the Pr
Re: (Score:2)
While you're within the globalist sphere. (Score:2)
Your use of the "we know better" marks you.
Re: (Score:2)
>Hillary
+1 funny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You quoted Judicial Watch 2 times. They aren't a reliable source. They are a well known highly partisan organization, and would say anything to discredit Obama.
And the quote for Freedom of information acts, the number of requests was also at an all time high, so I would expect that more of them couldn't be fulfilled. I would be more impressed with a percentage, but even that could be off if the same unavailable documents were requested.
Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
You quoted Judicial Watch 2 times. They aren't a reliable source.
Your disparaging assessment as an Anonymous Coward with no evidence to support your claim is unreliable. He also linked to a Huffington Post article, well ok it was by Andrew Breitbart, but that article links to a New York Times article [nytimes.com]:
"Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists -- members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its "outsized influence" in the capital.
On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control -- and their impact on the lobbyists' corporate clients.
But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors' log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the "most transparent presidential administration in history." "
$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, we're saving $70,000 over 4 years. Why would you even say something if it's such a low figure? Seriously, it's 0.000000018% of the budget. That's like a guy that makes $100k trumpeting the fact that he saved $0.0018. Less than 2/10s of a penny. I'm sure nobody expected anything different from this president, when your whole reason for getting elected is so your family and friends can loot the treasury "openness" isn't high on your agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $70k? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think savings is important wherever you can find it. The fact that Federal govt. spends such amazingly huge amounts of our money (and it *is* our money, after all -- since it comes from taxes) shouldn't mean they can ignore wasteful spending on a small scale.
That is foolish, it is better to realize that that sum is meaningless and unimportant, that way you aren't deceived into cheering over an empty victory.
Much like Trump's oversized check to the Park Service. It cost more to hold that press conference.
I'm not exactly a Trump supporter, but things are so polarized right now, I hear nothing but negative talk about pretty much any decision the guy makes in office.
Then you should notice how the Trump supporters cheer and praise everything they can about his empty accomplishments, and it would do you a lot of benefit to recognize that boasting for the hollowness it has.
In reality? I see no value in making visitor logs immediately available for anybody who decided to visit the White House? I would expect they'd have a bit tighter security than to just make that info openly available, actually. So Obama, IMO, went about that the wrong way.
Ah, the value is that you know who did go into the place, and don't have to wonder who let David Nunes into the building.
Obama did to right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama did to right.
The Obama administration regularly faked the visitor's logs, by editing out anyone they didn't want to admit was meeting with the President or White House staff. Or just not bothering to record hundreds of guests [cnn.com]. Or by recording the names of people that didn't actually show up [publicintegrity.org], but were cleared to do so. Or by holding meetings 'off site' [politico.com] so they wouldn't show up in the logs.
In other words, the Obama Administration's policy was to distribute flat out falsehoods, rather than transparency. Hiding everythi
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$70k? (Score:4, Informative)
He did actually promise not to play any golf while in office... At this point I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning though, because literally everything he does was condemned by his earlier self on video or in a tweet.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you *still* have people coming on to the thread (see SuperKendall's post upthread) saying "but Hillary".
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can still blame Hillary, viz:
I used to be rational about politics, but them Hillary came along. So it's her fault I voted for Trump.
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so $70,000 is meaningless to you?
No, but as the GP mathed out, its pretty meaningless in relative to an entire country. And spread over 4 years no less. The proper comparison is whether or not 0.00018 cents is meaningless to me (it is.)
I think savings is important wherever you can find it.
Agreed.
they can ignore wasteful spending on a small scale.
So having government transparency is wasteful to you? Sure this is a small drop in the transparency bucket but its still something they let us know before that they no longer will be. And just like every thousandth of a penny counts (apparently,) so does every bit of truth we can wring out of the government -- especially under Trump who seems to like lying to the people even when he's got absolutely no reason to do so.
I hear nothing but negative talk about pretty much any decision the guy makes in office
Because he makes basically nothing but bad decisions. Even his best decisions are questionable depending on your brand of ethics.
I see no value in making visitor logs immediately available for anybody who decided to visit the White House
Good for you. That doesn't mean nobody else sees value in it. And of course while I personally give few to no craps about who visited the White House, we get back to the issue of transparency -- its just one more thing they're hiding from the people.
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't mean they can ignore wasteful spending on a small scale.
Irrational argument #14 [leany.com] Value is at times a subjective thing, what you don't see value in to you, can hold immense value to someone else. Especially considering the point being talked about, that for a lot of people there's just nothing to gain from the information. People can do cost/benefit analysis and what not to justify/quantify those things, but ultimately it just boils down to what sounds better in the end. I digress though because its value isn't something I'd like to talk about. Their argument
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, so $70,000 is meaningless to you? I think savings is important wherever you can find it."
I'm just going to say "Mar a Lago" and "go fuck yourself"... and leave it at that.
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. All these fucks bitching every time Obama ordered a god damn sandwich aren't saying jack shit about the millions of dollars that's being blown for hist weekend golf trips and making sure Rapunzel stays in her tower in NY.
Nothing but a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Re:$70k? (Score:5, Funny)
“Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf. Worse than Carter.”
-Donald Trump
I guess all the country's problems are fixed now since Trump is playing so much golf. Way to go Donald!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old unoriginal and oft-debunked "Republicans are racist" argument. Good job. Too bad there is no "like" capability here, because this would surely get you lots. Seriously, though-- I challenge you to examine the racist-ness of your own post and then imagine how much racism would diminish if people like you would stop calling everyone a racist!
They were a sham to begin with (Score:1)
They were propaganda to begin with. Politically sensitive meetings simply occurred off site at nearby locations.
Laws and Regulations........ (Score:2, Informative)
Can someone please point me to the law or regulation requiring a sitting president or president-elect to release his or her tax returns?
Can someone please point me to the law or regulation that requires our government or government officials to maintain social media accounts?
Can someone please point me to the law or regulation that requires the executive branch to make White House visitor logs available for public review?
If you are going to be upset that they are no longer willingly providing this informati
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please point me to the law or regulation requiring a sitting president or president-elect to release his or her tax returns?
Can we simply skip the legal != moral debate and jump right to Godwin?
Trump Administration Refusing To Disclose (Score:4, Funny)
Trump Administration Refusing To Disclose Names Of White House Diamond Elite Members [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Peanuts (Score:5, Funny)
23K a year may sound like peanuts, but imagine, if it saves him but one trip to Mar A Lago to meet with undisclosed donors, we're starting to talk real money here.
Comrade CHUMP (Score:2)
Voluntary Disclosure Is Not Openness (Score:2)
The whole point of laws like FOIA is that the law says that the information is public. If each White House decides what it lays open and what it does not, then it will only lay open the stuff that it does not care if people see. So you meet someone somewhere else if you don't want them showing up on the visitor log. That makes a log disclosure sooooo effective.
Drain the swamp, he said. (Score:2)
Wonder how this fits into that.
Headline vs. Content (Score:3)
Trump kills open.gov! He hates openness! He's a horrible person! I hate him and so should you!
vs.
To save a bit of money, the content on open.gov is moving to whitehouse.gov.
I know that Trump isn't well liked (especially here), but come on, guys. You're acting like children.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, it won't be. It will be removed long enough for people to forget that it ever existed. Then there'll be no need to put it on whitehouse.gov. Problem solved.
This isn't just knocking Trump and praising Obama. I thought Obama's initial announcement of the site was disingenuous and it would be "open" exactly as far as the White House wanted us to see in and no more.
The galling part is that Trump's administration doesn't eve
Opacity increased in the "transparent" Obama adm. (Score:2)
Trump will release full visitor logs five years after the current term ends.
Obama just decided to keep many records secret [nbcnews.com]
Isn't Trump's mere delay instead of outright refusal much better?
Re:This is better than what Obama did (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump will release full visitor logs five years after the current term ends.
Sure he will. Right after he released his tax returns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firstly, tax returns are not presidential records. Secondly, from the summary, which starts with a negative tone but includes a few tidbits at the end:
"the removed disclosures, salaries and appointments would be integrated into WhiteHouse.gov in the coming months"
It seems they mostly ended the contract to host open.gov. Perhaps the contractor was an Obama friend, who knows.
Of course, we can't know the truth just yet since both the White House and the press (ex. Techdirt) have no credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
"the removed disclosures, salaries and appointments would be integrated into WhiteHouse.gov in the coming months"
So, just like tax returns. As I recall, they were also "definitely" being released very soon now. Right until the election.
Re: This is better than what Obama did (Score:2)
2021 - "Why are you so concerned about his visitor logs, he's not president anymore..."
Re: This is better than what Obama did (Score:2)
And why should it be? Personally, I couldn't care less about Trump, but I'm at a loss as for why this is suddenly important.
Are you concerned that Trump uses a loophole somewhere to avoid paying taxes? If so, who wouldn't do that? I don't know of one person who would deliberately not avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity.
Besides, it would seem to be consistent with his overall message about wanting to reduce taxation. If you were demanding the tax return of somebody who is in favor of higher taxes,
Re: This is better than what Obama did (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not suddenly important. It's been important all along. Trying to claim otherwise is one of those Alternate Facts that Kellyann likes to blather about.
I couldn't care less if he used a loophole. Actually, I do care – I want a loophole too. Or I want his loophole closed. What I really care about though is that he might have sources of income that would indicate he has conflicts of interest. We already do have laws that prohibit conflicts of interest by executive branch members. Google "emoluments" for more info. While some claim those laws don't apply to the president, no court has yet ruled on it, and every president going back to at least Reagan has both released his taxes and put his assets into a blind trust to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.
In the end, it's about how it looks. And Trump just looks bad for refusing to do those things. And a lot of other things too.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh good. Keep repeating "ignorant butt-hurt Socialists". Over and over. That'll win you some friends.
I'm not a Socialist – I'm actually a capitalist. I'm an honest capitalist. I'm a pragmatic capitalist. And 66M Americans – 3M more than voted for Twitler – aren't Socialist either. And your side's endless blathering about (((Socialists))) isn't going to magically make them Socialists either. (And I'm betting you live in one of those "socialist/welfare states" by which I mean your state rece
Re: (Score:2)
Except GP is correct, what the fuck does this have to do with his job as president? If there's some kind of conflict of interest, I'm sure more than one three letter agency would be aware of it.
And speaking of willful ignorance. Just keep on ignoring the fact that he's a facist
Now THAT is ignorance. It's fair to call Trump a lot of things, but fascist just doesn't fit at all. If he was truly fascist, then he'd be calling for nationalization of many businesses, and every business he doesn't want to be nationalized he'd start demanding that its goals and mission changed to benefit the good o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is better than what Obama did (Score:2)
That and the fact that coalition forces refused to allow Saddam Hussein era officials (and army officers) from serving in the new government and army. This resulted in a large number of well trained soldiers left with no job and a massive grudge.
Compare this to Germany - yes they had a massive de-nazification campaign, but civil servants and Hitler era officers were allowed to continue serving, under the watchful eye of allied forces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good, it saves money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good, it saves money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The guy literally campaigned on not golfing.
Yet another promise broken.
"Because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to play golf. Believe me! Believe me. Believe me folks."
08/08/2016 [youtube.com]
“I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,” Trump, 69, tells ITK. "I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”
TheHill.com 06/23/15 [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Thanks DNC! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that under Bernie it would be more like France.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the Dems have sabotaged the left, typically because they think they're so fucking smart by using "triangulation" (i.e. giving up before you even start the fight), and are arguably MORE to blame for the rightward shift of our politics than the Republicans. I would LOVE it if Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and the whole Clinton clan were all shot into the sun. With friends like them, we don't need enemies.
You are accusing me of never blaming my team, when it's the very opposite. I want the majority of 'my
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to Drain the Swamp if the swamp comes in and lobbies every day with a suitcase full of cash. Trump was elected on the idea that he was above being bought and manipulated, yet here he is making it easier to be manipulated. At best, very very bad optics for his "clean the politics as usual" at wors, an invitation to graft.
So, Day 88, not even first hundred days, he has no big successes, a few major failures, and probably not one campaign promise that hasn't been crushed. arguably getting his supreme
Drained the Swamps STINK MORE! (Score:2)
Clearly the billionaire and his voters know nothing about swamps. As far as "dem 'gaters" -- dangerous creatures don't exist in most swamps.
The white house website hosting that information instead? About as likely as his tax records being released.
Re:Drained Swamps STINK MORE! (Score:2)
subject correction. was in too much of a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Trump's mere delay instead of outright refusal much better?
So, Trump delaying the release of the information until after the point which it could be acted on is better?
Do you really need the peanut gallery to answer that for you?