Three New Executive Orders.

a reply to: Vector99

I do not believe, in the context within which I made my comment, that a situation can exist in which there is no alternative. In this instance, he either performs as a president who obeys the will of all of the people, not just the lynch mob that make up the most vocal element of his support base, or the country collapses into such civil unrest as to make the first few days of his presidency, and the protests and riots which occurred early on, look like a Mormon picnic event.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I know you are British, but I also know you receive our media.

You cannot in good conscious say they haven't been biased and slandering towards the man. The media in the US pretty much dictates a large majority of opinions. I believe the percentage is somewhere in the 60 percentile that receive their news from TV and TV only.

If you only watch CNN you would think Trump is on the path for starting WW3.

If you watch FOX you think he is doing ok, but is on the path for WW3.

Simply put, Americans are pretty effing stupid in regards to actual research, and exceptional at regurgitation.

As it stands now, and you can confirm this right here on ATS, there are individuals that would denounce Trump if he cured cancer.

How do you progress when half a nation is so consumed by media bias, and the other half is in utter vitriol of the other half?

originally posted by: trb71
a reply to: intrptr

And enhancement of the War on Drugs.

I don't think this is a war on drugs themselves.

Note this part:

thwart transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including criminal gangs, cartels, racketeering organizations, and other groups engaged in illicit activities that present a threat to public safety and national security

Then he says to thwart the above as related to drugs.
That sounds good for the safety of all of us.
The gangs and cartels are a major cause of violence in this country, and it is related to drugs.
Also, heroine is an epidemic that is killing people every day.

He does not say in that order to go after people smoking things in their home.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That wasn't the point or question. These EOs don't seem to accomplish anything. They read like mission statements which every presidency has done but the proper form is an executive action not a EO. That is why I question if he has competent staff to explain these things to him.

Most of these EOs are vaguely worded "orders" to make it appear that Trump is keeping his campaign promises, without actually laying out a specific way to achieve them. Eventually, he will issue a proclamation declaring "America is Great Again."

a reply to: Vector99

Well, the way you progress is as follows.

First of all, to use your example, you actually cure cancer. That is step one. Step two, shut up. You do not say anything about it what so ever, you just QUIETLY get on with your work, and do only good work, work which harms no one, benefits everyone, does not embolden or empower the already empowered, but lends power to the powerless.

If you do those things, the right way, if your means are as morally solid as your ends, and your ends as morally solid as they can possibly be, then the media simply cannot make it appear as if anything other than a win can result, without losing all credibility.

Of course, that is not how his Presidency has started in the least. He is for asset forfeiture law, when most reasonable people are against it. He is for a greater amount of policing, when most people are sick of being policed, and want to be protected instead (they are DIFFERENT notions entirely). He is for a whole heap of things that the majority of people in his country are against, and that is a serious problem, one which no amount of media spin in EITHER direction can solve. The only way he can solve it, is by recognising that actually, he may have won the White House, but the version of him he has been his whole life, is wholly inadequate to the task, and become a different, better man, and fast.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grimpachi

That wasn't the point or question. These EOs don't seem to accomplish anything. They read like mission statements which every presidency has done but the proper form is an executive action not a EO. That is why I question if he has competent staff to explain these things to him.

Most of these EOs are vaguely worded "orders" to make it appear that Trump is keeping his campaign promises, without actually laying out a specific way to achieve them. Eventually, he will issue a proclamation declaring "America is Great Again."

Have you actually read the complete Executive Orders?
I don't think that you have, based on your remark.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: JinMI

From what I read they would typically be executive (ACTIONS) but for some reason he made them into executive ORDERS. It doesn't make sense because it reads like a wish list to enforce existing laws.


What exactly is changing from the EOs? It seems questionable if he has competent staff guiding him IMO.

Have you actually read the complete Executive Orders?
I don't think that you have, based on your remark.

If nothing is changing from these EO's, then why are so many people freaking out about the EO to temporarily hold immigration from certain countries?

How does an order to remove 2 regulations for every new one not change things?
I could go on and on, but I don't think that you have read the orders.

And yes, Trump is also telling people to follow existing laws, because for too long Obama and others have been telling people to disregard our laws, including regarding immigration.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Have you actually read the complete Executive Orders?

Of course I have, and pointed out the loopholes from time to time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The chaos surrounding his "not a Muslim ban (wink wink)" is a perfect example. It should have been broken down, communicated to the agencies with specific instructions and timetables, and phased in. The wheels of government grind slowly but exceedingly fine.

I don't think that you have, based on your remark.

Can you provide an example of an EO that provides specific instructions, rather than mission statements or "keep doing your job more" exhortations?

ETA:

If nothing is changing from these EO's, then why are so many people freaking out about the EO to temporarily hold immigration from certain countries?

It's sad that I need to explain this. There are several reasons. In practical terms, the way it was implemented led to massive confusion across government departments, airlines, and even foreign governments. Even the Trump administration admits that (without accepting responsibility, of course.) Next, the ban does not address the issue it claims it does. No-one from the banned countries has ever committed an act of terrorism on American soil, making the order suspect. Trump's campaign rhetoric was Islamophobic, and the arbitrariness of the ban suggests a move towards extreme nativism. Then, it is noticeable that many countries whose nationals have been known to commit acts of terrorism against the United States were excluded from the ban. Since Trump has business holdings in those country, it clearly appears to be the result of a conflict of interests. Finally, it is an attempt to set a religious test for citizenship and that violates the Constitution.

How does an order to remove 2 regulations for every new one not change things?

Because now the bureaucracy has to waste time sifting through old regulations looking for outdated regulations thy can bank. Taken to the extreme, of course, Trump's math will result in a negative number of regulations. Try to wrap your head around that.

I could go on and on, but I don't think that you have read the orders.

I know you haven't.

a reply to: TrueBrit

First of all, to use your example, you actually cure cancer. That is step one. Step two, shut up.

Really? Shut up? In this scenario, i think cancer patients might have an issue with that.

If you do those things, the right way

Nothing happens the right way, let's not be ignorant.

if your means are as morally solid as your ends, and your ends as morally solid as they can possibly be, then the media simply cannot make it appear as if anything other than a win can result, without losing all credibility.

Best to agree that we disagree here.

Of course, that is not how his Presidency has started in the least.

I agree

He is for asset forfeiture law, when most reasonable people are against it

I'm against it, and have to look into the details of his order, I don't know the details. If you can provide them to me I'd appreciate it, if you cannot I would suggest not assuming.

He is for a greater amount of policing, when most people are sick of being policed, and want to be protected instead (they are DIFFERENT notions entirely).

His stop and frisk stance is pretty absurd and idiotic, but i don't see an EO on it...yet

He is for a whole heap of things that the majority of people in his country are against

No blanket statements please, citations required.

The only way he can solve it, is by recognising that actually, he may have won the White House, but the version of him he has been his whole life, is wholly inadequate to the task, and become a different, better man, and fast.

While his twitter rants are that of another world, if you cannot see the difference in the man since he was elected, you are looking through rose-coloured glasses. Yes, he is still a pompous ass, but he has been refining it since day one.

Personally? I don't know. I didn't support him, I was anti-hillary. His recent actions regarding the DKPL have me questioning him, but other than that his actions seem sound.

Just because you heard a liberal media view of him doesn't make it factual.

He has been president for less time than it takes most individuals to recover from the flu, how about we wait a bit and see how it goes?

a reply to: TrueBrit

The canvass is so large and he has such a limited time to finish his "masterpiece" that a spray paint gun, and assistants are needed to clear out the tremendous mess and damage from the previous White House pretender.

As with any artist-it is a labor of love-filed with mistakes that can be corrected-painted over and over til finely tuned.

You've got to give him credit for such lightning fast responses-like a doctor desperately using any method to save their patient.

Far from perfect but at least trying with all his pros to save this country-like his ways or not.

And, no, I do't like this guy at all but our country was dying and now we have hope of true leadership-yes, rough and crude but with the American people's best interests. Yahoo!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JinMI

You cannot paint a masterpiece with a deck brush.

One cannot help but think that this portrait that Trump is trying to paint, would benefit from the application of a narrower brush than he is using.

Umm...apparently you've never heard of...Bob Ross...

Some people actually can paint with a broad brush...


YouSir

This guy doesnt seem to like democracy very much.

Or at least he seems scared of democracy.

a reply to: Vector99

With regard to your comment on the matter of "Shutting up", I would hope that it is clear that I meant that once he had the cure and had made sure everyone who needs it has access to it, regardless of their ability to pay for it I might add, that rather than blow his own horn to paroxysms of pleasure over it, like he would over anything else, I would hope that if he DID cure cancer somehow, or free up the resources to allow it to be cured, that he would actually be humble about his role in it, because lets face it, HE would not have been doing any of the work. I very much doubt he knows the chemistry involved in concrete correctly, and he has been allegedly working in construction for most of his life (or rather, getting other people to work construction, while he did far more important things, like taking people to court, getting taken to court, settling, about which he would later lie, and general rich boy stuff), so he would not have been wielding the pipette, or petri dish.

As for your defeatist attitude toward truth and righteousness, I do not agree to disagree. Let me be clear. There are two ways that things can be done. Either the wrong way, or perfectly, from the ideology behind the doing of them, to the practice and the method by which they are done. No element of an action which has worth and justice of its own, need ever be justified by a speech, nor given legitimacy by its outcome, because the method by which the end is secured, is just as pure as the ends themselves. No other action ought ever be taken. Means justify ends, and in every situation where this is not the case, there is evil afoot, a fight to have, someone to send to a deep hole in the Earth. Those who believe otherwise are very often a greater part of the problem than they realise, and this must change if the future of this species is ever going to contain anything other than the same cycle of lies, pain, torment and anguish as it always has. The species must demand better of itself than to justify means by way of the ends they accomplish. That always was, is and always will be a backward, regressive and utterly unjustifiable habit that we have fallen into, and should be countered at all times, in the strongest possible terms.

On the matter of asset forfeiture...

What follows is a segment of a conversation that Trump had with a particular gentleman, one Sheriff Aubrey, during a roundtable discussion with Sheriffs from all over the country, on the topic of asset forfeiture.

SHERIFF AUBREY: Sheriff John Aubrey, fifth-term sheriff, Jefferson County, Kentucky. Past president of National Sheriffs’ Association. And my fellow sheriffs have brought up a number of points, and I’d like to add two to it that I know are on your plate and the administration’s plate. The 1033 program, where we were sharing Department of Defense surplus material that helps us in our war. They were used in the war, and they helped us in our war. That got severely curtailed.

And the other thing is asset forfeiture. People want to say we’re taking money and without due process. That’s not true. We take money from dope dealers —

THE PRESIDENT: So you’re saying – okay, so you’re saying the asset-taking you used to do, and it had an impact, right? And you’re not allowed to do it now?

SHERIFF AUBREY: No, they have curtailed it a little bit. And I’m sure the folks are —

THE PRESIDENT: And that’s for legal reasons? Or just political reasons?

SHERIFF AUBREY: They make it political and they make it – they make up stories. All you’ve got to do —

THE PRESIDENT: I’d like to look into that, okay? There’s no reason for that. Dana, do you think there’s any reason for that? Are you aware of this?

[Then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente]: I am aware of that, Mr. President. And we have gotten a great deal of criticism for the asset forfeiture, which, as the sheriff said, frequently was taking narcotics proceeds and other proceeds of crime. But there has been a lot of pressure on the department to curtail some of that.

THE PRESIDENT: So what do you do? So in other words, they have a huge stash of drugs. So in the old days, you take it. Now we’re criticized if we take it. So who gets it? What happens to it? Tell them to keep it?

MR. BOENTE: Well, we have what is called equitable sharing, where we usually share it with the local police departments for whatever portion that they worked on the case. And it was a very successful program, very popular with the law enforcement community.

THE PRESIDENT: And now what happens?

MR. BOENTE: Well, now we’ve just been given – there’s been a lot of pressure not to forfeit, in some cases.

THE PRESIDENT: Who would want that pressure, other than, like, bad people, right? But who would want that pressure? You would think they’d want this stuff taken away.

SHERIFF AUBREY: You have to be careful how you speak, I guess. But a lot of pressure is coming out of – was coming out of Congress. I don’t know that that will continue now or not.

THE PRESIDENT: I think less so. I think Congress is going to get beat up really badly by the voters because they’ve let this happen. And I think badly. I think you’ll be back in shape. So, asset forfeiture, we’re going to go back on, okay?

SHERIFF AUBREY: Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, how simple can anything be? You all agree with that, I assume, right?

This segment above was found in the article below....
nymag.com...

...which quoted this transcript of the whole meeting, between sheriffs and the President, held on February 7th.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Now, as you can see, the Sheriffs made a totally unrealistic case for asset forfeiture, which totally ignored the FACT that the power has been misused, repeatedly, and for profit. Its not a point for debate, it literally got abused the hell out of, by many Sheriffs jurisdictions, repeatedly, for years. I would have thought that no one around here needs the problem with the asset forfeiture laws explained to them, since they have been gone over repeatedly here, and elsewhere. We all know the due process problems involved, and the abuses that result.

The point is, that Mr Trump has said to these Sheriffs, that he intends to "go back on" asset forfeiture, which in the context of the conversation, means they are going to expand upon the asset forfeiture legislation, rather than curtailing it, which is what the previous president was doing. This is extremely dangerous territory to tread onto, because if there was ever an issue with unreasonable search and seizure, its the asset forfeiture law. It was dodgy when it was written, and it is only going to get worse again, if Trump gets the program running again! It would be the worst thing he could do in relation to the subject!

If you look also at the rest of the transcript, they speak also about military surplus equipment being funneled to LEOs, which is already a problem. More militarisation in the police force is not what ANYONE was looking for! Check out that whole transcript, its a gold mine of information which makes you wonder how the bunny rabbit working Trumps controls can possibly think itself a clever creature.

a reply to: intrptr

Are you really surprised? plus we will be walled in.. RFID coming soon.. probably economic collapse first though for new monetary system..

a reply to: TrueBrit

Bob Ross Could paint some pretty spiffy trees with a 2 inch brush and with a paint roller, Rolf Harris did some..... I'll shut up right there

a reply to: TrueBrit

HE would not have been doing any of the work.

That's not how I referenced it. I meant it as literally he could cure cancer singlehandedly and his haters would find flaw.

As for your defeatist attitude toward truth and righteousness, I do not agree to disagree

That means you agree with me.

Let me be clear. There are two ways that things can be done. Either the wrong way, or perfectly, from the ideology behind the doing of them, to the practice and the method by which they are done.

I guess we will agree to disagree again. Unless you think there is an in between wrong and perfect that is.

No element of an action which has worth and justice of its own, need ever be justified by a speech, nor given legitimacy by its outcome, because the method by which the end is secured, is just as pure as the ends themselves.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. You speak of a utopian society in which ALL agree. That is not reality.

No other action ought ever be taken

Emphasised by me. It's what humans do. We kind of suck and are vindictive assholes.

Those who believe otherwise are very often a greater part of the problem than they realise

I can link you several instances of that. Have you heard of youtube?

The species must demand better of itself than to justify means by way of the ends they accomplish.

No country on earth has the plans, REAL plans, to leave earth and explore the solar system. How can we demand better than we have when we confine ourselves to artificial boundaries?

and this must change if the future of this species is ever going to contain anything other than the same cycle of lies, pain, torment and anguish as it always has. The species must demand better of itself than to justify means by way of the ends they accomplish.

JFK (figuratively) took man to the moon, but died before it actually happened. His vision empowered us to do it. His drive made us try. Well that and the cold war space race. but mainly JFK. As it stands now we can't stop fighting over water closet classifications.

That always was, is and always will be a backward, regressive and utterly unjustifiable habit that we have fallen into, and should be countered at all times, in the strongest possible terms.

Believe it or not, and whether he is the one or not, this IS indeed the common man's way of saying NO MORE. Many do NOT care if things crumble, because we were on that inevitable path anyway with our typical political standings. The same ol' same ol'. It's different now. Good or bad, it is different. I can handle change, can you?

What follows is a segment of a conversation that Trump had with a particular gentleman, one Sheriff Aubrey, during a roundtable discussion with Sheriffs from all over the country, on the topic of asset forfeiture

Discussions do not equate to law. What is the EXACT terminology of the EO? Without that, and ESPECIALLY referencing a conversation, we have hearsay and speculation. Speculation you OBVIOUSLY have predetermined yourself to. Again, the cancer thing.

The point is, that Mr Trump has said to these Sheriffs, that he intends to "go back on" asset forfeiture, which in the context of the conversation, means they are going to expand upon the asset forfeiture legislation, rather than curtailing it, which is what the previous president was doing.

No, in the US, the phrase to go back on means to reverse.
on the note of civil asset forfeiture, and to note I haven't seen the word civil in any of that text, here is a clip you might find intriguing. I know it pissed me off like no other to hear. It's worth the 16 minutes, trust me, you will like it. You'll understand my thoughts on it from the bit.

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: JinMI
Shortly after the swearing in President Trump signed three more executive orders.

Interesting among the first:
(a) strengthen enforcement of Federal law in order to thwart transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including criminal gangs, cartels, racketeering organizations, and other groups engaged in illicit activities that present a threat to public safety and national security and that are related to, for example:

(i) the illegal smuggling and trafficking of humans, drugs or other substances, wildlife, and weapons;

(ii) corruption, cybercrime, fraud, financial crimes, and intellectual-property theft; or

(iii) the illegal concealment or transfer of proceeds derived from such illicit activities.

Shines a little light on his law enforcement priorities.

My first thought was he is going after the Clinton's full force. Edited for emphasis(strike out).

Nope, pizzagate was fake news

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: intrptr

Well looked at with the wide angle lens ...

Not nearly wide enough...
Police are here to protect the wealthy from the poor.
We are entering a corporate/police state... within a wall!
And you think that this is all happening with your benefit and well being in mind?
Really?
"We're from the government and we're here to help you!"? *__-

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JinMI

You cannot paint a masterpiece with a deck brush.

Although I see your point, a 'master' can paint a masterpiece with that deck brush jammed up his ass! *__-

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: intrptr

Somehow that all smacks of more Feds, more police, more surveillance and more search and seizure violations.

Care to elaborate? or did you just see a title and think "oh hey here's a Trump bashing opportunity"

Its got nothing to do with Trump. He didn't write the legislation just signed it (whatever it says) into law.

The police state apparatus is firmly entrenched, all it needs now is to bloom. Once you deny peoples basic individual rights its easy to just add on ever stringent measures, part of the system of control all empires have put into effect over the course of history. You study history much?

Where does this always lead?