SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump will sign an executive order to allow local police departments to receive or purchase military surplus equipment:
Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."
The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.
In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods. "Those restrictions went too far," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."
Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing "all he can to restore law and order and support our police across the country." [...] The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.
Organized gangs get to play soldier.
Also at The Hill and USA Today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:06PM (43 children)
Please follow up with a statement of condemnation for how things have turned out. That does not imply you would have preferred HRC or voted differently given the two choices, but it would be nice to hear some supporters condemn Trump for his absolute betrayal of every silver lining you believed in.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:10PM (42 children)
They're not, they're backing him up at every step. Anything that makes him look bad is "lies" from the "liberal media".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:24PM (35 children)
No, only most of it is lies from the liberal media. The rest they more or less expected but voted him in anyway because he was still a better alternative than Hillary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:44PM (34 children)
Oh come on. The craziness in his cabinet (e.g., Scaramucchi out after less than a week on the job) isn't lies. They don't make that stuff up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:01PM (13 children)
Nothing wrong with that though. If someone is refusing to do, or incapable of doing, the work the way you want them to, you fire them and get someone who can and will. That's how you're supposed to boss.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:14PM (3 children)
But if the boss consistently hires people who can't or won't do the job right, and keeps having to fire them, then hires replacements who also can't or won't... none of that reflects badly on the boss?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
Like was explained in another comment, as circumstances change the employee hired earlier may not be the best employee to have around today. Different skill sets work better in different situations. An organization needs to adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes this involves people being replaced. It's a perfectly natural process, and it's good when it happens. Severe inefficiencies can creep in when such change doesn't happen. See the US auto industry. Unions prevented this natural ebb and flow of employees, and it ruined some of the largest organizations in the country.
It's the same for a presidency. The people who were the best fit before and during the transition of power may not be the best fit once firmly in power. Often it's because such people can be providing more value elsewhere, in some other role. Trying to prevent this change can be totally disastrous.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:44PM
Wow! That sure is some extra-powerful cognitive dissonance you got going there!
Many of his staff have already been purged and we are not yet one year into this administration. Scaramucci lasted barely a week and a half! Are you seriously suggesting that Scaramucci had already outlasted his usefulness after just ten days? Do you really think that is good long-term planning by the Clown in the Oval Office when he can't even hold onto a Communications Director for more than ten days? Look, I'm all for rearranging and changing up the staff, as needed, but this is quite a bit more churn in the White House than I can ever recall in my life time. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented. And we haven't even touched on the issue of Trump not yet even nominating many sub-Cabinet level positions. What about those people? Are they adding better value outside the administration?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:32AM
Oh sure it does. And once the Washington insiders that he only took in as a handjob to the Republican party are all gone I expect you'll see a lot less turnover.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:38PM (5 children)
If it was just Scaramucci sure, one firing in isolation is nothing to worry about, and may even show strong leadership. But its been a revolving door over there and it's not just changing of the guard from Obama era to Trump era which you would expect -- its a revolving door of his OWN picks and that's a reflection of toxic management or incompetent management or both.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:40AM (4 children)
Yeah, that does kinda make him look less on top of things than most folks would prefer. I'm not most folks though. Him fucking up gives me a happy. It's going to give me an even bigger happy when Hillary tries again in 2020 and fails again despite every shortcoming of his. Maybe then the DNC will get it through their thick skulls that we're sick to fucking death of being lied to on the campaign trail and then ass fucked once they get in office. A hell of a lot of the American people will not stand for more of the same old bullshit anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
Really? That "hell of a lot" of them stood and delivered for more lies and bullshit, just from a different source that happened to have the correct letter following their name on the ballot.
Whether these particular lies and bullshit were any better is up for debate.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
Kind of my point. Half the country would rather knowingly vote for someone they have a pretty good idea is going to screw them over as opposed to more of the same.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:41PM
Meh, I don't buy it. Most Americans are gullible as hell, and a large portion of them vote purely on the basis that there is an 'R' (or a 'D') following the candidate's name on the ballot (which is the stupidest reason of all). Tribalism trumps thinking every time.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:05PM
I'm not in the US, but even on the media here it was obvious HRC was being propped up by 'medical' treatments. I think the chances of her being fit and healthy enough to survive another campaign in four years are pretty damn low.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:59PM (2 children)
And there is nothing wrong with you being a total moron. I wish I had a TMB app that could spew shitty wisdom, would make for a fun ice-breaker at parties. Maybe a gameshow jeopardy type thing, "I'll take 5th grade reasoning for $500."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:42AM (1 child)
If your reasoning needs two pages to explain, it's because you lack the intelligence to state a complex thought simply.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:39AM
Ooh another one! Solid gold today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:02PM (9 children)
If a boss feels that an employee isn't a good fit for a particular job, why should this boss keep this employee in that position for longer than necessary?
What lefties like you see as "craziness", people who have experience with business and running large-scale operations see as "being responsible".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:03PM (7 children)
If you're constantly hiring, and then and firing people after a very short time, that shows that you suck as a boss and aren't very good at picking competent people in the first place.
Trump doesn't have any real experience running a real business, and has never turned any serious profit. He would have been better off sticking his inheritance into an S&P500 index fund.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:16PM (6 children)
You fail to understand that business, including the business of running a country, is very dynamic.
People who are the right employees today could very well be the wrong employees tomorrow. And it's not because they're bad employees, or because whoever hired them was bad at hiring. It's actually the opposite: the context that an organization is operating within changes over time, and the organization itself must adapt to these new circumstances.
New circumstances sometimes call for new employees, and sometimes new circumstances also mean that existing employees are no longer needed.
It's idiotic to try to fight against these dynamics. Change is sometimes necessary.
That's what President Trump excels at. He isn't afraid of positive change.
That's why he comes into so much conflict with the Democratic and Republican party establishments. They want the status quo, regardless of the cost.
President Trump, on the other hand, wants real progress. He doesn't want a regression to communism or socialism like many of the so-called leftist "progressives" want. He wants real, forward-moving, beneficial progress. In many ways he's one of the few truly progressive politicians in the USA today.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:35PM (4 children)
Wow, those are some serious mental gymnastics there. If you ran a company that way, hiring people and firing them a week later, you'd be out of business very quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
You couldn't be any more wrong. My business success proves you wrong, and the success of the billionaire president of the most powerful nation on Earth proves you wrong, too. We'll take our flexible, dynamic, real-world business operating techniques over your inflexible and failed methods any day. We'll succeed. You will fail.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:10PM (1 child)
Uzzy if you're gonna post shitty trollcrap please do it with your own name.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:58PM
I haven't posted AC since I came on staff, darlin. Everything I do is right there in your face.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:21PM
Because people are so good at learning and then executing a new job within a week?
You seriously think that?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by curril on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:16PM
Oooh, an old-school adequacy-style troll. Great job, moving from a semi-plausible business statement to the conclusion that Trump is a true progressive. Maybe you should have thrown in there a claim that Scaramucci's short stint was a brilliant ploy to make Spicer's and Priebus' sad, but necessary, departures more palatable to the Republican establishment but once they left Scaramucci's skill set was no longer a good fit for the office so he had to be replaced as well. Or that his pardoning of Arpaio is a signal that progressive sheriffs no longer have to be concerned about following regressive, burdensome court orders. Nevermind, scratch that. Any description of Trump's actual choices as being insightful would clearly look idiotic and reveal your hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:12PM
If they are such a bad fit, how in the hell did they get hired in the first place? The Donald knows how to find the best, smartest people? Not? You can fire all you want, but if you are relying on luck, after you run out of family and sycophants, you will never have a competent team, in business or in government. Fraud. Trump is a fraud, a loser fraud.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:18PM (7 children)
The chaos in the cabinet is just political circus intrigue. But there is a benefit.
We're seeing some Clinton vs. Trump comparisons here, but let's switch to Cruz vs. Trump.
Trump's cabinet is in disarray with competing factions jostling to push each other away from the President's ear. Trump can't coordinate with Congress well at all and has attacked many Republicans in Congress. The relationship between Trump and McConnell is so bad that we've heard reporting along the lines of them not talking for weeks and shouting at each other over the phone when they have spoken. It could get worse [talkingpointsmemo.com], with a government shutdown being threatened. Trump and Paul Ryan have a lot of bad blood too.
Compare to a hypothetical President Ted Cruz. Even though some of his Senate colleagues hate Cruz for being a snake (Trump is a lion), the guy would not have had the same unprecedented strained relationship between a Republican President and Republican Congress. Cruz would be pushing through more evangelical bullshit, whereas with Trump we get lip service here, a military trans ban there.
The dysfunction in the Republican party right now is incredible. They can't get a proper repeal of the Affordable Care Act through despite that being an obvious #1 priority throughout the entirety of the Obama presidency. Liberals have come together as never before to oppose Trump, and Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.
The biggest blow is the Supreme Court. Trump will have no problem picking justices as conservative as any other Republican would pick. He may get the opportunity to pick 3 of them. Especially if he gets a second term. But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:32PM (5 children)
Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.
I do agree that if Cruz had been elected, things would probably be even worse, with him pushing through a lot of evangelical bullshit, and in fact that's why I hope nothing happens to Trump because if Pence takes over, it'll be just like that. Pence is also a religious loony, but he's politically competent and will get a lot of shit pushed through.
However, I'm not really seeing what you're talking about here with the DNC. It seems like the DNC is still controlled by the Clinton faction and has continually doubled-down on its BS claims about "Russian hackers!" and steadfastly refused to admit that they were the ones who lost the election due to their own (and Hillary's) actions.
But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.
Yeah, as I said before, I hope this doesn't happen. Pence will be much worse than Trump. Even if somehow, both Trump and Pence got taken out (double impeachment?) at the same time, it'd suck because then we'd have President Ryan, though I'm honestly not sure if that would be better or worse than our current predicament. However, a long, drawn-out impeachment process that never actually succeeds in getting rid of Trump would probably be a good thing, esp. if it's led by the Republicans in Congress: it'd make the GOP look bad, and it'd shut down the government for years potentially so nothing would get passed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:53PM (4 children)
Sanders got within striking distance of Clinton despite opposition to him within the DNC and Clinton being considered the anointed one by the media. It was supposed to be a done deal that Clinton would get the nomination, and that the loony-looking Sanders would get a token 2-10% of the primary votes.
Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat. A lot of shady stuff [theintercept.com] happened to tank Sanders and push Clinton through, and it pissed off the left wing of the party.
Who is the best person to challenge Trump in 2020? Cory Booker? Who knows.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat.
Really? With the way the DNC has behaved all along, and also considering their historical record of running lousy candidates (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale), I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them run Hillary yet again in 2020, and lose yet again. They really do seem to be clueless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:34AM
Seriously, you couldn't have gone back to Humphrey? The Dems have been running anointed ones instead of candidates actually able to engender excitement my whole life.
I highly recommend people take the time to listen to Woody Guthrie and Phil Ochs. List to their songs and you'll very quickly realize how long this shit's been going on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:47AM (1 child)
Please no -- Cory Booker is just a pharma whore. He's exactly like Clinton, but with different plumbing and skin tone. If the DNC goes the Clinton way again, I might actually have to vote for whoever the GOP challenger is, though I'd prefer to vote for someone like Sanders or barring that, a 3d party.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41PM
What are you talking about? Booker at least has done a couple of genuinely progressive things, such as publicly opposing the Drug War. He's no Sanders, but I wouldn't say he's exactly like Hillary; that's just ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:34AM
The republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They voted to do so, knowing they could depend on Obama to veto the repeal.
Things are now... awkward.
Promises were made, and now Trump makes it obvious that the republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The vote to repeal will now always fall 1 or 2 votes short. The republicans voting to keep the mess are probably instructed to do so by the congressional leadership. Somebody is picked to do the job of voting "no", keeping up the lie.
Note that the senate leadership could easily get the job done. They only need 50 votes according to our constitution, but they are operating under different rules that were self-imposed a few decades ago. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to blow away those rules, but they don't. They like being able to pretend that they simply can't find the votes.
This is what we call the "uniparty". On most issues, the democrats and republicans cooperate to screw over the country. They pretend to battle, much like WWE wrestlers, over a few social issues (abortion, LGBT, guns...) that are easy for voters to understand. Meanwhile, complicated banking and tax and IP law gets passed with no outrage.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)
That's his management style and it is rather typical behavior of populist politicians. High turnover in appointed positions displays who's in charge. It may appear (and be) crazy, but it can be effective theater to the low level supporters. Also, the White House Communications Director is not a cabinet level post (in particular, no approval by Congress required). There's a lot less overhead and risk to firing such a person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:38PM
No Trump is a beta cuck who can't stand that his wife gets pleasure from every member of his staff. She even chose Huckabee over touching Trump's "tiny hands" again.
Like a true duck he fires everybody instead of being a real man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:43PM
It's more like they're backing him into a corner at every step.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:48PM (4 children)
Whoa!
Like the lies that came from HRC?
Like the theft of the leadership from Sanders?
Like the sticky, slimy snail trail of corruption she left behind her everywhere she went?
Like the lack of leadership she has shown since losing (and the leadership that Sanders picked up with her failure to come forward)?
I'm not backing him: I'm hating her sliminess!
If she hadn't stolen it from Sanders, the President might BE Sanders.
Instead, there was a big backlash against her, and you have Trump.
Blame HRC for Trump, not the "liberal media". It is all in the lap of HRC.
Hate the player, not the result that she forced to the surface.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM
Very well put, and please accept a virtual +1 from me.
We were going to be screwed either way.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:21PM
DJT lies more in one sentence than HRC did her entire pollical career. Why aren't you beating the liar drum for him?
As apposed to the swamp of corruption that DJT jumped right into and donated large amounts of his own excrement to replace what had splashed out because of his jump? He lied when he said he was going to do something about it.
Hey, DJT is the president, not HRC or BHO. It's not their responsibility to lead from the sidelines. This shit show is all on the Orange One and his supporters who refuse to stop him or at least take him aside like a spoiled child and set him straight.
About the only thing one can agree with from that line of snail excrement. HRC and the DNC screwed Sanders, yes. *golf clap* But if we're afraid of libruls we're afraid of socialists even more aren't we?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
"Like the lies that came from HRC?"
"Like the sticky, slimy snail trail of corruption she left behind her everywhere she went?"
vs Trump? Really? HRC stank, that's hardly a reason to pick Trump. If there's a pile of dogsit in your path, do you step in a bigger pile of dogshit to avoid it?
"Like the lack of leadership she has shown since losing (and the leadership that Sanders picked up with her failure to come forward)?"
WTF?? Seriously. WHAT THE FUCK? Who cares what Hillary did after she lost the election. She can be a retired grandmother and make cookies all day for all I care. She wasn't elected president, its not her job to lead.
"If she hadn't stolen it from Sanders, the President might BE Sanders.
Instead, there was a big backlash against her, and you have Trump."
That's big bucket of maybe. What if Sanders had won the nomination and Trump still beat him? What if HRC and the DNC hadn't played dirty, and HRC still won the nomination and then still lost against Trump. Hell, maybe there is nothing the democrats could have done to win 2016; 8 years of democrats and lot of people didn't want a continuation of that no matter what democrat was running. There is no evidence to really support that Sanders would have definitely beaten Trump.
You want us to "Blame HRC for Trump", but what about the RNC that put him up as a candidate in the first place? Blame the democrats for a shitty candidate with a shitty campaign on the democrats --yes they should own that. But blame the republicans for putting Trump on the ticket as their guy. That wasn't HRC. That wasn't the democrats. That was all on the republicans, and they need to own that. I get why the democrats lost.
Either of the RNCs past two picks -- John McCain and Romney would likely also have HANDILY beaten HRC had they been on the ticket this time around; and I think a number of the people who did put their name in for president in 2016 would have beaten HRC. So no, I don't blame HRC for Trump. Blame republicans for putting him on the ticket. The dems were a mess and HRC was pretty thoroughly unlikeable -- for her to lose against Trump means she'd have lost against almost anybody this round, so its on the RNC and the republican party that that 'anybody' was Trump.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:35PM
Okay, one at a time (rolls up sleeves):
1. Hillary is/was? the leader of her party. THE LEADER OF HER PARTY.
What kind of leadership did she show to her party to rally them after the defeat? What kind of leadership did she show when it was Sanders out there taking all the shots about why they lost?
***When you are LEADER, you lead. You get out there and you explain what happened, where you went wrong, what could have been done differently, you take responsibility. YOU LEAD.***
But no, it was left to Sanders to pick up the pieces and lead, cause HRC disappeared into her wine and long walks.
A LEADER LEADS: A LOSER LIKE HRC JUST DOESN'T. She should have shown her party some leadership.
2. It does not matter about what the RNC did: they could have put Hitler up for running and it doesn't matter.
They picked Trump to run.
What matters is WHO WON.
3. So, why did he win? He ran a better campaign than she did. He got his message out better (which is odd because he can barely talk, let alone tweet etc.)
He showed more leadership (He got out there, met people, led.)(She wouldn't talk to reporters, appeared wooden and 'sick'/old.)
He convinced some people that he would be the better person: THE OTHERS, people who didn't want to vote for him (and WOULD HAVE voted Sanders) but couldn't stomach voting for HRC were stuck with a decision.
-can't vote Sanders: bitch took that away.
-can't vote HRC: bitch is too slimy.
-what's left? (or should i say -what's left if you don't want bitch to get in?)
I put the blame on HRC because she/the people around her (DWS...) stole the leadership from the person who was leading and who WOULD HAVE WON if you believe the exit polls.
I put the blame on her for being such a douche ("what do you mean, wiping the computer...like with a cloth?" Fuck off!!!)
I put the blame on her douche husband with his tarmac meeting.
I put the blame on people like you who voted for her and didn't say "What the fuck! Give us Sanders".
Trump won because she was such a fuck up leader and people saw it.
I do not support Trump (I'm not even AMERICAN for fuuuuucks sake!), I just can't take a loser like HRC.
He won because she was sooooo repellant to the people.
Yes, Trump is a douche, but she lost because she is so corrupt she couldn't even let Sanders win the leadership election: she had to STEAL it from him.
Douche is douche: bitch is bitch.
You want to keep going? I can do this allllllllll night. She lost because she sucks as a leader.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---