@duckpin are not going to be published in the Federal Register?

Or did you expect them to be published in the FR by now?

#2.1 It's easier for members of Congress to pass it on up to the president. No, or limited, accountability that way and approx. 90% of Reps & Sens are reelected when they run.

Kennedy when he issued an executive order it was at least published in the Federal Register so an interested person could read it and see if the agency followed it or not. Other presidents have issued a mix of exec. ords. and executive memoranda(I think this is the term) and the latter are seldom published in the Federal Register. We may or may not be seeing the whole thing.

Government by diktat.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal To me it means we probably won't ever see the entire order and that the "memo" will not be published in the Federal Register where are regulations pursuant to law have to be published. We shall wait and see.

#2.1 I heard just recently from a NODAPL leader's video, that Trump's "executive orders" on the pipelines were not, in fact "executive orders" but instead "executive memos." Apparently that means something, and I've got no idea what.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal double standards. Who knew so many people could be so suddenly infuriated over things that were already happening in prior administrations?

I think Trump is more persuadable than most here would think, but we'll see eventually....

#2 #2.3 That's a good point.

Not sure why we need to prove Trump is a fascist (any more than any of the others running for President were, with the possible exception of Bernie & the third parties). It's pretty obvious what's wrong with him: he's a cruel, mercenary racist and sexist.

I don't think he gives two shits about ideology. Like his erstwhile friend, Hillary, if socialism were the dominant ideology on the planet (and the way to get more money & power for himself), he'd be out there singing the Internationale.

Can't we just take it as read that most of the political figures who present themselves to us ARE fascists, in every important sense? I.E., they are corporatists. They believe that the functions of government and the interests of industry should be one, and that industry should be controlled by the wealthy few. Industry should help government maintain a police state by pouring money into politicians that are willing to do that (and against politicians who aren't), while the government should provide its military power and power of policing to defend industry against any unruly citizens who might object to the way they're being treated. Easy peasy, perfect circle.

How many politicians are willing to stand up against corruption and the police state? Consistently and truthfully? That's the number of politicians we have who aren't fascists, or, at least, cowed into submission to same.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

along with the Establishments of both parties. Why? Do you think they care about his hair or crude language?

At one point in our history, white indentured servants and black slaves united to demand better conditions. Their owners broke that movement by Divide and Conquer (sorry I don't remember dates or the state - Virginia?). "We like you better than them. They're terrible."

Are we falling for that again? Trump is surely not everything we want, but he is a wonderful distraction from the Total Spectrum Dominance warmongers (the Empire for which our deaths would be "worth it," just like all those Iraqi children) and from those who wanted the TPP to let foreign corporations make us pay their "anticipated future profits" for any laws protecting our people, to expand intellectual property to keep pharmaceutical prices high, to give our personal information to foreign companies, etc. We're not talking about those issues any more, just looking at vagina hats and Trump's hair, making gloomy assumptions, and calling him names.

We're following Hillary in delegitimizing our whole system, just what the corporate globalists want.

#2 #2.3 That's a good point.

Not sure why we need to prove Trump is a fascist (any more than any of the others running for President were, with the possible exception of Bernie & the third parties). It's pretty obvious what's wrong with him: he's a cruel, mercenary racist and sexist.

I don't think he gives two shits about ideology. Like his erstwhile friend, Hillary, if socialism were the dominant ideology on the planet (and the way to get more money & power for himself), he'd be out there singing the Internationale.

Can't we just take it as read that most of the political figures who present themselves to us ARE fascists, in every important sense? I.E., they are corporatists. They believe that the functions of government and the interests of industry should be one, and that industry should be controlled by the wealthy few. Industry should help government maintain a police state by pouring money into politicians that are willing to do that (and against politicians who aren't), while the government should provide its military power and power of policing to defend industry against any unruly citizens who might object to the way they're being treated. Easy peasy, perfect circle.

How many politicians are willing to stand up against corruption and the police state? Consistently and truthfully? That's the number of politicians we have who aren't fascists, or, at least, cowed into submission to same.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
One of the few senators to speak out against Global warming. Yet his name is on the list of dems voting against allowing the importing of drugs from Canada. On 1-28 he sents me an email reading, among other things:
"I can think of no more essential responsibility for elected officials than ensuring all our constituents have access to lifesaving health care, which is why this has been at the forefront of my entire political career. I’m ready to throw myself into this fight as the new administration begins, and I’m counting on your support so I can continue the fight in the years ahead." [emphasis added]
-- This per your "willing to stand up against corruption and the police state?"

#2 #2.3 That's a good point.

Not sure why we need to prove Trump is a fascist (any more than any of the others running for President were, with the possible exception of Bernie & the third parties). It's pretty obvious what's wrong with him: he's a cruel, mercenary racist and sexist.

I don't think he gives two shits about ideology. Like his erstwhile friend, Hillary, if socialism were the dominant ideology on the planet (and the way to get more money & power for himself), he'd be out there singing the Internationale.

Can't we just take it as read that most of the political figures who present themselves to us ARE fascists, in every important sense? I.E., they are corporatists. They believe that the functions of government and the interests of industry should be one, and that industry should be controlled by the wealthy few. Industry should help government maintain a police state by pouring money into politicians that are willing to do that (and against politicians who aren't), while the government should provide its military power and power of policing to defend industry against any unruly citizens who might object to the way they're being treated. Easy peasy, perfect circle.

How many politicians are willing to stand up against corruption and the police state? Consistently and truthfully? That's the number of politicians we have who aren't fascists, or, at least, cowed into submission to same.

@Big Al People did call out BO sometimes on some of the same things.

However, the vitriol that accompanies is entirely different, and the action taken (which was almost nothing during BO's terms) is entirely different (for example, the protests).

Like I've said before, all it takes is a purty package (and the right party), and most people will be fine with whatever is going on.

What do you think causes these different reactions- some grumbling when BO does it, then overwhelming hysteria when Trump does it. I call it pure bias.

#2.3 people here didn't come down on Obama for the same things. That's bullshit, most of the people on this site detest Obama, Clinton and what they've done, and many of us were calling out Obama's use of executive orders warning that someday there will be a narcissistic, sociopath billionaire REPUBLICAN as president who will abuse it even further.

@Mark from Queens There have been WAY too many people I relied on culturally who have left us and taken their amazing gifts with them lately. Robin Williams hit me very hard. For a moment, my mind simply refused to accept the fact of a world without him.

I wept all afternoon when I found out Bowie was dead.

#3.2 and beautiful artists, to me, of all-time. In those days (the 90's) he was flying under the radar and, as usual, consistently pushing the envelope artistically, not always in favor by the masses but always interesting, new and unpredictable. Can't remember now (was almost 20 years ago!) but I know Robert Smith played also.

The tour with Nine Inch Nails was another. For that, he picked one of the hottest bands of the day who he was enamored with (always had his finger on the pulse of current music), and did one of the most unique things I'd ever seen: NIN show actually segued into Bowie's, with no break. Meaning, they finished with a weird quiet piece that left only Trent Reznor onstage, with Bowie then joining him midway through the song. As he did his band began to slowly assemble around him and we were off into the Bowie, just like that. But even though he did really cool, modernized, techno-heavy versions of his classic stuff, I must say that the audience was younger and primarily there for NIN and deserted the place midway through. They're all probably kicking themselves now, wishing they were back in their seats.

Worked in the music industry then and one of the perks was having your pick, most times, for shows like this and some intimate affairs, etc. Met him briefly a couple of times. Was eminently gracious, so charismatic and genuine (of course we were all in the "industry," but you really did sense something wonderful about him). I don't think there's much of that industry left anymore, or at least I don't recognize or have any interaction with it.

Another of the so many cool things to recollect about him: After 9/11 Bowie announced he would do a series of small shows for NYC, one in each borough. So I took my girlfriend at the time who was from the Czech Rep, to see him at a small theater at a college in Queens. Almost seems dream-like when I think about it now; the intimacy and school-quality of the hall made me feel like I was showing up at my high school for an assembly, and there was David Bowie full-on taking us for a ride on his Stardust! It was unbelievable. We were giddy afterward.

Man, of all the people who left us last year by far for me the biggest void is from David Bowie. Seemed to me to be the kind of guy who would live a very long, storied life, imparting wisdom down to the upcoming generations who would be sitting at his feet, marveling at his rich, prolific, deeply artistic career.

Sure enough, just found this and am elated to have my memory jarred. "Quicksand" from Hunky Dory is one of my favorite tunes by him:

And dig this treat! Doesn't get any better than Rick Wakeman, from Yes (who rank for me in my all-time top 3 bands, which of course is ever-expanding), explaining playing on a Bowie session and his genius, while he performs on solo piano "Life on Mars."

@edg fury about Trump, the root cause is completely ignored.

We can't ignore root causes if we want to solve a problem.

#5.3 Great comment overall, but I disagree slightly with your stance on refugees. If they are refugees that resulted from US actions (Honduras, Syria, Yemen, Libya ...), we should be responsible for fixing the country we broke instead of just accepting a few refugees to assuage our conscience.

@edg I am with the "You broke it; you bought it" school of thought, too. Our wars, 'interventions', and 'police actions' seem to go on indefinitely now, though. Until it is safe for people to go back home I think we should let some of them come here if they wish, and also contribute a lot more for short-term help for those who hope to return to their homes after a short stay in a refugee camp.

This should be funded by a temporary increase in taxes on the top 10% in this country and special taxes on the 'defense' industry. This temporary tax would be collected to help citizens of any country where our military or one of our intelligence agencies dropped bombs or engaged in other actions that contributed to an increase in the number of refugees from that country. The refugee-creation tax would be decreased after 5? years of non-violence on our part if citizens of the affected country were able to return home during these years. Support of refugee camps would be supplemented by help with rebuilding.

Refugees who wished to remain in the US should be welcome to do so under the types of laws that applied to Cuban refugees.

#5.3 Great comment overall, but I disagree slightly with your stance on refugees. If they are refugees that resulted from US actions (Honduras, Syria, Yemen, Libya ...), we should be responsible for fixing the country we broke instead of just accepting a few refugees to assuage our conscience.