Author Topic: President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept  (Read 49962 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11174
    • View Profile
Van Jones on Trump's police reforms is positive
« Reply #350 on: June 16, 2020, 03:59:10 PM »
https://www.newsmax.com/draft-stories/policereform-trump-vanjones/2020/06/16/id/972504/

of course those on MSNBC and the rest of CNN with scowling faces

and calls for  "its not enough" and just "  window dressing" etc


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Going after Section 230
« Reply #352 on: June 18, 2020, 07:11:00 AM »
I've been following this issue here on this page and on my forum for quite some time-- thank you President Trump and AG Barr for generating some real movement!
=============================

Justice Department Proposes Limiting Internet Companies’ Protections
Action follows President Trump’s executive order seeking to weaken broad immunity enjoyed by Facebook, Twitter and other platforms

President Trump’s administration is involved in a continuing clash with technology giants

Updated June 17, 2020 5:01 pm ET

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department proposed a rollback of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades, in an effort to make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content.

The department’s changes, unveiled Wednesday, are designed to spur online platforms to be more aggressive in addressing illicit and harmful conduct on their sites, and to be fairer and more consistent in their decisions to take down content they find objectionable.

The department said the time was ripe to realign tech-company legal immunity “with the realities of the modern internet.”

“Several online platforms have transformed into some of the nation’s largest and most valuable companies, and today’s online services bear little resemblance to the rudimentary offerings in 1996,” when the legal protections were first granted, the department said.

The proposal would have to be adopted by a divided Congress, and it could be difficult to get such a complicated, controversial plan enacted in an election year.

Still, the move represents an escalation in the continuing clash between the White House and big tech firms such as Twitter Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google unit and Facebook Inc.

Last month, President Trump signed an executive order that sought to target the legal protections of social-media companies, responding to concerns among some conservatives about alleged online censorship by the platforms. The executive order aimed to limit legal immunity for social-media companies when they are deemed to unfairly curb users’ speech, for instance by deleting their posts or suspending their accounts. The administration, however, can’t impose many of these changes unilaterally.

The Justice Department’s proposed changes address the type of speech concerns raised by Mr. Trump, but they extend more broadly, seeking to strip civil immunity afforded to tech companies in a range of other circumstances if online platforms are complicit in unlawful behavior taking place on their networks.

The proposal, for instance, would remove legal protections when platforms facilitate or solicit third-party content or activity that violates federal criminal law, such as online scams and trafficking in illicit or counterfeit drugs.


Facebook and Twitter have taken different stances on moderating President Trump on their platforms. It's the latest controversy in an ongoing debate about the responsibility tech companies have in policing speech online.

Internet companies would lose immunity if they have knowledge that unlawful conduct is taking place on their platforms or show reckless disregard for how users are behaving on their sites. Without those legal protections, tech companies could be exposed to claims for monetary damages from people allegedly harmed by online fraud and other illegal activity.

The department also wouldn’t confer immunity to platforms in instances involving online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to curtail immunity for internet companies to allow victims to seek redress, the department said.

Attorney General William Barr has repeatedly voiced concerns about online-platform immunity, citing, for example, a terrorism case in which courts ruled that Facebook wasn’t civilly liable because its algorithms allegedly matched the Hamas organization with people that supported its cause.

The Justice Department is also seeking to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil-enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons.

Twitter and Facebook representatives on Wednesday reiterated their past statements in support of longstanding legal protections.

Twitter last month said removing the protections would threaten the future of online speech and internet freedoms. Facebook has said that cutting platform immunity would restrict more speech online “by exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say.”

The sweeping protections now enjoyed by tech companies were established by Congress in the internet’s early days, through a provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Under that law, tech platforms are generally not legally liable for actions of their users, except in relatively narrow circumstances. Internet platforms also are given broad ability to police their sites as they see fit under the current law.

Those protections would be scaled back in significant ways under the Justice Department’s proposal, which seeks, in essence, to prevent platforms from taking down content without offering reasonable rules and explanations—and following them consistently. It also would make platforms more responsible for third-party content in other areas such as online commerce.


Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Social Media (May 29)
The proposal’s restrictions on platforms’ content-moderation practices would be extensive.

For instance, the department is proposing to strike from federal law a provision that allows platforms to delete content that they merely deem to be objectionable.

The proposal also would give some teeth to an existing “good-faith” standard that platforms are supposed to use in their content-moderation decisions. The aim would be to require platforms to adhere to their terms of service, as well as their public claims about their practices. Platforms also would have to provide reasonable explanations of their decisions.

Digital platforms have historically made decisions independently about how to police content, covering topics ranging from election interference to harassment. On Wednesday, the first industry group devoted to such issues, the Trust and Safety Professional Association, was launched with funding from Facebook, Google, Twitter and other big tech companies. “These issues are front and center during these fraught times,” the organization’s founders said in a statement.

The Internet Association, a trade group of leading online companies, warned: “The threat of litigation for every content moderation decision would hamper IA member companies’ ability to set and enforce community guidelines and quickly respond to new challenges in order to make their services safe, enjoyable places for Americans.”

Section 230’s broad protections have drawn increasing criticism from both the right and the left in recent years, and some lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, have begun weighing rollbacks. A bipartisan group of senators currently is pushing legislation encouraging internet companies to take special steps to block online child sexual exploitation to qualify for full protection.

But the new proposal seems unlikely to break an election-year logjam in Congress over how to proceed. Inaction is being fueled in part by concerns among some lawmakers that going too far with reforms could push tech companies to further tighten restrictions on speech and content, or, alternatively, retreat from sensible policing standards.

The politics of the debate also are heated. While some Democrats support changes to the law, they also question the Trump administration’s aims.

“I’ve certainly been one of Congress’ loudest critics of Section 230, but I have no interest in being an agent of Bill Barr’s speech police,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said.

Some administration critics believe its recent actions on Section 230 are aimed at discouraging big tech companies from seeking to restrict online activities of the president and his allies during the 2020 campaign.

Republicans cheered Wednesday’s proposal as long overdue.

“I’m glad to see Attorney General Barr taking action to roll back Section 230 immunity,” Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) said on Twitter. “Google—along with every other big tech company—shouldn’t be allowed to get away with content filtering or censorship.”

Mr. Trump’s executive order last month focused on encouraging more action to curb Section 230 by federal regulators, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. It also seeks to convene a working group of state attorneys general to look into complaints by users.

As expected, the order was quickly challenged in federal court by an online-rights group; that challenge remains pending.

On Wednesday, Democratic FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a self-described skeptic of Mr. Trump’s executive order, urged Republicans to bring their proposals forward quickly, so affected companies don’t find themselves facing uncertainty during campaign season.

“Let us be clear with the American public about what, if any, real-world impact the executive order has, and let us avoid an upcoming election season in which the government can use a pending proceeding to intimidate private parties,” he said in remarks at an industry think-tank webinar.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
McMaster on the USMCA
« Reply #358 on: July 07, 2020, 11:44:44 AM »
The North American Trade Dividend
The revised U.S.-Mexico-Canada pact will help post-Covid recovery and lure jobs back from China.
By H.R. McMaster and Pablo Tortolero
July 6, 2020 6:58 pm ET

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement took effect last week, and U.S. business and political leaders should be racing to take advantage of its benefits. The deal will hasten economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Even more important, it will counteract the Chinese Communist Party’s aggression.

The reduction of trade barriers among the USMCA’s parties will strengthen U.S., Mexican and Canadian supply chains, returning manufacturing jobs to North America from China. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic exposed how North America had become too dependent on China for medical equipment and drugs, Beijing’s campaign of intimidation and censorship was already hurting international companies.


The pressure China inflicted on the National Basketball Association last year after Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey voiced support for Hong Kong protesters is one of countless Communist Party demands that companies abandon liberal values, forgo criticism, and provide at least tacit support for the repression of the Chinese people. Implementing the USMCA provides an opportunity to minimize North American companies’ exposure to the party’s coercive power.

The U.S., Mexico and Canada must undertake the economic recovery together. Economists predict a post-Covid-19 economic recession of about 6% to 8% of gross domestic product for the U.S. and Canada. Mexico’s recession is projected to be even deeper, between 8% and 10% of GDP, due in part to a weak economic stimulus package. If the Mexican economy, which relies heavily on currently distressed sectors like tourism, manufacturing and oil, lags behind the U.S. and Canada, consumers and workers in all three countries will suffer.

In Michigan alone, the sudden rupture of deeply interconnected supply chains in automobiles helped lead to the loss of more than a million jobs in less than two months. Exports from Michigan to Mexico amount to more than $10 billion a year. In contrast to trade with China, this trade with Mexico is characterized by much greater shared production. The percentage of American content in most Mexican exports to the U.S. is between 20% and 40%, while U.S. content in imports from China is approximately 4%.

A joint North American recovery will require diplomatic as well as economic therapies. U.S. and Canadian diplomats must convince the administration of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador that the expansion of North American trade is essential. Even before the pandemic, Mr. López Obrador’s populist policies and distrust of corporations were depressing Mexico’s economy.

More than 40% of Mexicans live in poverty, yet the Mexican government announced abrupt cancellations of potentially lucrative projects, most notably a partially built Mexico City airport in 2018. In addition to lost jobs, government disruptions of that sort depress investor confidence.

After the virus struck, Mr. López Obrador’s odd mix of fiscal restraint and distrust of business led him to pursue a policy of austerity rather than fiscal stimulus. In June Mexico fell off consulting firm AT Kearney’s list of the top 25 destinations for foreign investment.

But as the economy worsens—another 8% of Mexicans may fall below the poverty line this year—leaders may be ready to try a new cure. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans consider economic hardship to be the greatest challenge facing the country. Treatment could take the form of a U.S.-sponsored fiscal recovery plan for Mexico, using existing credit quotas at international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as well as increased capital financing from the Inter-American Development Bank. In particular, Mexico should take advantage of its access to the IMF’s flexible credit line, which allows countries with strong economic fundamentals and policy track records to obtain assistance before they face a full-blown crisis.

U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials should align guidance for economic reopening with the implementation of the USMCA’s new rules-of-origin provisions. That would accelerate the reactivation of value chains in critical industries.

Public and private leaders who are already working together to satisfy demand for Covid-related essential products should shift discussions to a long-term vision for adapting North American economies to the post-Covid world. High-level forums, such as the U.S.-Mexico CEO Dialogue hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will help identify opportunities for investment and joint ventures.

One discussion topic should be how to build resilient supply chains that reduce the corporate and national-security risk from Chinese espionage and unfair trade practices. Local business-to-business relationships play an important role. North American business organizations can help drive the near-term reactivation of regional production hubs and identify long-term ventures to capitalize on the repatriation of production to the region. All should work together to speed USMCA’s implementation in key industries such as automobile and pharmaceutical manufacturing, aerospace and energy.

Improved economic cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico shouldn’t be difficult. The countries share deep social and cultural ties strengthened by more than two decades of growing economic integration. When President Trump hosts Mr. López Obrador at the White House this week, the two leaders should discuss implementing the USMCA in a way that will accelerate the economic recovery and alter critical supply chains, protecting trade from the whims of an increasingly aggressive Chinese Communist Party.

The people of North America, while recognizing that their democracies are works in progress, should be proud of their ability to demand reform, exercise their rights to freedom of expression, and live free under the rule of law rather than under fear of an authoritarian regime. Citizens should demand that their leaders uphold the principles of free trade, realize the gains associated with reciprocal market access, and ramp up an engine of production in our own hemisphere through the USMCA.

Lt. Gen. McMaster, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a retired Army officer, served as White House national security adviser, 2017-18. Mr. Tortolero, a Fulbright Scholar, recently received a master’s in international policy from Stanford.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump EO and the NEPA
« Reply #360 on: July 17, 2020, 03:27:43 AM »
Trump’s New Chant: Build the Road
Fixing environmental reviews will pay real dividends for years.
By The Editorial Board
July 16, 2020 7:17 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
168

President Donald Trump speaks during an event about regulatory reform on the South Lawn of the White House on July 16.
PHOTO: DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
President Trump often gets itchy to sign some giant public-works spending bill. Here’s a much better gift to America: The White House on Wednesday finished its renovations to the process for environmental reviews. This might sound as dry as old cement, but it’ll help big projects get built for years to come—that is, if President Joe Biden doesn’t use an expedited procedure next year to undo it.


OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Trump Goes After China-and Joe Biden


SUBSCRIBE
A 1970 law called the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, mandates an environmental study if a major project involves federal funding or permitting. In 1981 the expectation by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was that even for “large complex energy projects,” the whole review process “would require only about 12 months.”

Today that seems heavenly. In recent years the average review involving an environmental impact statement took 4.5 years, and the final document ran to 661 pages, before appendixes. In a quarter of cases, the process burned at least six years and 748 pages. Those timelines don’t necessarily count any subsequent lawsuits over whether the NEPA review was faulty. One sadly spectacular outlier was a 12-mile highway expansion in Denver that took 13 years to get through environmental review.

The Trump Administration’s reforms, which are the first comprehensive update to NEPA rules since 1978, establish presumptive limits. A full environmental impact statement, the new rules say, should take no more than two years and 300 pages. An environmental assessment, which is less intensive, should max out at a year and 75 pages. Going longer will require written permission by “a senior agency official.”

The CEQ estimates that federal agencies complete about 175 impact statements each year, plus 10,000 assessments. Do the math, and in a decade the Trump Administration’s rules could literally cut thousands of years of cumulative delay, speeding everything from interstate highways to gas pipelines to subway lines.

How Long Does an Environmental Impact Statement Take? Completion time for1,276 proposals, 2010-18
Source: The Council on Environmental Quality
Note: EIS completion time in years, from notice of intent to record of decision
YEARS
25th Percentile2.2 years
75th Percentile6.0 years
Average4.5 years
Median3.5 years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17+
0
50
100
150
200
250
Projects 300
How Long Is an Environmental Impact Statement? Page counts, withoutappendixes, for 656 proposals, 2013-18
Source: The Council on Environmental Quality
100 or under
up to 200
up to 300
up to 400
up to 500
up to 600
up to 700
up to 800
up to 900
up to 1,000
up to 1,100
up to 1,200
up to 1,300
up to 1,400
up to 1,500
up to 1,600
up to 1,700
up to 1,800
up to 1,900
up to 2,000
2,000+
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Prolonged delays have real costs: They raise the price of building, cause projects to be abandoned, keep drivers wasting gasoline in snaillike traffic, and so forth. Making environmental reviews succinct will be better for informing citizens, since a focused 100-page study is more likely to be read than a flabby 700-page one.

The Trump rule removes language about “cumulative” effects and says that purported environmental consequences “should generally not be considered if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain.” NEPA isn’t intended to assess whether a natural-gas pipeline in the Midwest might cause flooding in Florida in 2100. Impact statements must now include the estimated cost to prepare them, which the CEQ says in the past hasn’t been “routinely tracked.”

If Democrats sweep Washington in November, the danger is that they might overturn this using the Congressional Review Act. That fast-track process requires only a simple majority, bypassing the Senate filibuster. Under the CRA, the 2021 Congress will be able to nix regulations promulgated during this year’s final 60 legislative days. The precise “lookback” window isn’t certain until the adjournment gavel is slammed, but it’s probably here already. Maybe Mr. Trump should switch his 2020 rally chant from “Build the Wall” to “Build the Road.”

No amount of administrative rule-making can bulldoze the legal bog where America’s builders get mired. NEPA, the CEQ emphasizes, is “a procedural statute,” and the Trump Administration’s rules don’t “alter any substantive environmental law or regulation.” That said, these will be much better procedures if they prevent another 13-year study of a 12-mile road.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
President Trump right on Back to School
« Reply #361 on: July 22, 2020, 06:14:16 AM »
Daily Caller

Biggest news of the day...

TIMES OF LONDON REPORTS... NO EVIDENCE OF STUDENT TO TEACHER TRANSMISSION ON ENTIRE PLANET... JORDAN SCHACHTEL: "Too dangerous"? There is no record of a student EVER transmitting the coronavirus to a teacher
With dozens of countries in the process of [...] having already launched full school re-openings (the United States is lagging tragically behind on this front), a renowned scientist has made it clear that the threat to teachers is overblown, if not nonexistent.

Mark Woolhouse, the infectious disease expert, told The Times of London: “One thing we have learnt is that children are certainly, in the 5 to 15 brackets from school to early years, minimally involved in the epidemiology of this virus. “They are probably less susceptible and vanishingly unlikely to end up in hospital or to die from it.

Prof Woolhouse adds: “There is increasing evidence that they rarely transmit. For example, it is extremely difficult to find any instance anywhere in the world as a single example of a child transmitting to a teacher in school. There may have been one in Australia but it is incredibly rare.”

Woolhouse said digging up the fact that children did not transmit the coronavirus was a “very hard won” endeavor.

“We had to go into full lockdown while we accumulated this information. It is absolutely vital that we use this information in managing whatever happens in the future, so that we can target whatever measures we take much better at where they are needed. For example, most governments in Europe now recognise that stopping children playing outside was not needed, and most governments will probably now say that going to school as normal is safe. We can use that information in the future.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Tito Ortiz on President Trump
« Reply #363 on: July 29, 2020, 05:52:12 AM »
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 01:38:49 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Richard Epstein: Trump helps the Environment by Enraging Environmentalists
« Reply #364 on: July 31, 2020, 09:51:52 AM »
Trump Helps the Environment by Enraging Environmentalists
His plan to reform NEPA would speed replacement of old, dirty projects with cleaner new ones.
By Richard A. Epstein
July 30, 2020 6:50 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
46

Train cars carrying coal roll into an unloading facility in Newport News, Va, May 22, 2014.
PHOTO: PATRICK SEMANSKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Trump administration recently published the first comprehensive revision of federal regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Environmental groups predictably denounced the initiative. Among its many detractors, the Wilderness Society insists that these regulations will “essentially gut” NEPA by putting “polluters in charge of environment protection.” This objection wholly overlooks NEPA’s deeply dysfunctional features.

From its inception in 1970, NEPA had two basic objectives: first, to require all new projects to receive a thorough and transparent vetting of potential environmental risks; second, to expand democratic participation in the review process via public hearings.

Five decades later, it is clear that NEPA has achieved neither. The most obvious sign of institutional distress is the long time—4.5 years on average—to complete the elaborate environmental impact statement before work can commence. Today’s NEPA behemoth is far from its 1970 origins, which is why the Trump administration’s update is overdue.

Environmentalist critics work on the flawed assumption that the longer the review period, the greater the environmental protection. But that’s untrue for the large majority of important projects. As I detail in a report for ConservAmerica, these new projects typically replace older, more dangerous projects and use superior technologies unavailable generations ago. When NEPA review delays a state-of-the-art pipeline, for instance, that requires greater shipment of fossil fuels by rail and truck, which is far more likely to cause major spills with extensive collateral damage.

As drafted, NEPA requires the government agency in charge of a review to consider “every significant aspect of environmental impact,” a clear impossibility for complex multibillion-dollar projects. Typically the truncation of that open-ended inquiry leads officials to become preoccupied with small defects and overlook the major improvements in both consumer welfare and environmental safety that new roads, bridges, airports and other projects promise.

Ostensibly, the report released in July by the Trump administration is concerned only with NEPA’s extensive procedural provisions. It contains many useful proposals on how to coordinate and streamline a cumbersome process often divided haphazardly among multiple agencies. One set of needed changes is strict timelines and page limits on environmental impact statements to speed up and focus the review process.

But by far the most important proposal is to soften the devastating consequences that flow from any asserted NEPA violation. Courts have wrongly created a strong presumption that any deviation from NEPA’s exacting requirements, however trivial, requires that the permit be denied. The endless rounds of NEPA reviews led to the abandonment of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline this month before construction could begin, and to shutting down for the flimsiest of reasons the Dakota Access Pipeline after three years of successful operation.

NEPA rules also deviate from sound judicial practice. An injunction is appropriate only when a plaintiff can show irreparable harm, which can’t be demonstrated solely by showing that the project developer does not yet have in place a perfect plan for containing oil spills that are unlikely to occur in the first place. Ironically, NEPA’s laborious process undercuts the statutory objective of making informed public decisions. Trying to decide everything at the initial stage of review requires speculation and invites errors in judgment. A far more sensible process would allow work to begin while these details are ironed out through project upgrades, backed by public and private inspections, strong liability protections and extensive insurance policies. These sensible precautions would sharply cut down both the frequency and severity of adverse environmental impacts.

As drafted, NEPA was intended to invite all segments of the public to submit comments to improve decision making. But in 1971, in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invited a flood of new litigation by holding that any disappointed party may challenge an agency approval in federal court. Even if the bulk of informed opinion supports a new project, an extreme outlier can sue to stop it. NEPA includes no provision establishing a private right of action, but the practice has become so ingrained that it can’t be undone by regulation.

Congress should act to stop the hijacking of the permit process to block the use of fossil fuels throughout the economy. Informed, democratic decision making requires consistent environmental regulation, not a patchwork of dubious judicial decisions that turn NEPA into a legal swamp that now must be drained.

Mr. Epstein is a law professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
President Trump, Israel, and UAE
« Reply #365 on: August 14, 2020, 09:13:12 AM »
Trump’s Mideast Breakthrough
The Israel-UAE accord discredits Obama’s regional vision.
By The Editorial Board
Aug. 13, 2020 7:19 pm ET

The city hall in the Israeli coastal city of Tel Aviv is lit up in the colors of the United Arab Emirates national flag on Aug. 13.
PHOTO: JACK GUEZ/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

President Trump’s Mideast strategy has been to strongly back Israel, support the Gulf monarchies, and press back hard against Iranian imperialism. His liberal critics insisted this would lead to catastrophe that never came, and on Thursday it delivered a diplomatic achievement: The United Arab Emirates and Israel agreed to normalize relations, making the UAE the first Arab League country to recognize the Jewish state in 20 years.

The agreement is worth celebrating on its own terms but it also holds lessons for U.S. foreign policy. On regional strategy, this shows the benefit of the U.S. standing by its historic allies in the Middle East. President Obama shunned Israel and the Gulf states and sought to normalize Iran. His nuclear deal, an economic boon to Tehran, was a means to that end. But Iran does not want to be normalized. It’s a revolutionary regime that wants to disrupt the non-Shiite countries, spread its military influence from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, and destroy Israel.

Mr. Trump’s pivot from Iran reassured Israel and the Gulf states and put the U.S. in a position to broker agreements. Israel and the UAE have worked together covertly, but the agreement will allow deeper economic ties and strengthen regional checks on Iranian power. UAE’s move could also spur Bahrain and possibly Oman to seek the benefits, in Jerusalem and Washington, from closer Israel ties. For decades Israel was treated as a pariah state in the Middle East, but that era may be ending.

As for the Israel-Palestine question, as part of the deal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to call off annexation of parts of the West Bank. Public support in Israel for annexation was shaky. It was also opposed by the military establishment and would have carried diplomatic costs. With the UAE deal, Mr. Netanyahu can avoid annexation while protecting against criticism from his right.

The UAE can say it blocked annexation and protected the Palestinian cause. But the fact that annexation was a bargaining chip at all shows how the balance of power in the Israel-Palestine conflict has shifted in Israel’s favor. Arab states would previously have demanded far greater concessions in exchange for recognition. But the Iran threat, plus the Palestinians’ long-running rejectionism, has made that issue less important to Arab states.

Recall that mandarins of Obama foreign policy said moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would cause an Arab backlash. In fact, it is being followed by some of the closest Arab-U.S.-Israeli cooperation on record. Larger strategic realities in the Middle East are more important and are driving this change.

One question is whether a Joe Biden Administration would grasp this, or whether it would follow the Obama model of retrenchment against Iran plus browbeating Israelis for their supposed moral failings. The Biden campaign praised the deal while Ben Rhodes, an architect of Obama Administration policy, blasted it for “the total exclusion of Palestinians.”

Yet the coterie of anti-Israel and Iran-friendly Democratic foreign-policy hands may soon find their influence reduced. The UAE deal strengthens the anti-Iran coalition and withdraws an excuse—annexation—that the left could use to attack Israel. Whoever wins in November, the breakthrough leaves the U.S. in a better position in the Middle East.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Re: President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept
« Reply #368 on: September 05, 2020, 06:58:38 PM »
It was the first thing that crossed my radar screen.

Here's this:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13126
    • View Profile
Trump nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for role in brokering Israel-UAE deal
« Reply #369 on: September 09, 2020, 08:11:05 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-for-role-in-brokering-israel-uae-deal

A member of the Norwegian Parliament nominated President Trump for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

Christian Tybring-Gjedde, who leads Norway's NATO delegation, told Fox News that Trump's role in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates was a singular achievement.

"For his merit, I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees,” Tybring-Gjedde said.

Tybring-Gjedde told the Nobel Committee in his nomination that the deal could precipitate several other peace deals between Israel and other countries in the region. He called the negotiation a "game changer" for the Middle East.

Recommended For You

The woman behind 'Trump House' works to keep Pennsylvania red, one vote at a time
"As it is expected other Middle Eastern countries will follow in the footsteps of the UAE, this agreement could be a game changer that will turn the Middle East into a region of cooperation and prosperity,” he wrote.

Tybring-Gjedde also cited other foreign policy decisions made by the Trump administration in his nomination, including his work in Pakistan, North Korea, and South Korea. He also noted that Trump has been working to minimize the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan as part of his larger effort to avoid new wars.

"Indeed, Trump has broken a 39-year-old streak of American Presidents either starting a war or bringing the United States into an international armed conflict. The last president to avoid doing so was Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter,” Tybring-Gjedde wrote.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11174
    • View Profile
nominated for Nobel
« Reply #370 on: September 09, 2020, 09:56:06 AM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/09/trump-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-for-historic-peace-agreement-n910036

while important his accomplishment is nothing like what Greta has achieved.

interesting some Nobel committee members admit giving it the history's greatest human being was a mistake;   perhaps obama people who were against it are superstitious and feel it jinxed him.

conservatives always knew it was an undeserved sham.

PS

any one care to wager on whether he will win it or not.  :wink:





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13126
    • View Profile
Re: President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept, Amy Barrett
« Reply #373 on: September 27, 2020, 06:00:09 AM »
Yes.  Along those lines, The R's problem over the years is they won't fight back. The party of Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney did not fight back. This nominee is worth fighting for - and they will.  This Court and these principles are worth fighting for.
 Look how quickly two or three in question got on board. A party transformed.  A Trump accomplishment.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
GPF: Trump keeps heat on Chinese microchips
« Reply #374 on: September 28, 2020, 02:30:40 PM »


Chip wars. We’ve been closely following the U.S. efforts to put the hard squeeze on Chinese telecom giant Huawei by denying it access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, as well as any microchips manufactured elsewhere with U.S. technology. The U.S. is now taking aim at China’s ability to source microchips indigenously. China’s largest chipmaker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Co., is considered a generation or two behind global rivals like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., but the U.S. is keen to make sure it never catches up (something that would deprive the U.S. of one of the few sources of commercial leverage it has over China). Washington reportedly imposed on Friday new export controls targeting SMIC to make it more difficult for the firm to import vital semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Such equipment is the Chinese tech industry’s Achilles’ heel, because it’s extremely advanced and hard to copy, as well as difficult to stockpile. So whereas Huawei has been able to give itself (and its U.S. suppliers, which rely heavily on sales to the company) some breathing space by hoarding microchips before U.S. sanctions kicked in earlier this month, SMIC is believed to be in dire straits.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13126
    • View Profile
Re: President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept
« Reply #375 on: September 29, 2020, 05:29:11 AM »
the Census Bureau reported that real median household income grew to $68,703 in 2019, an impressive 6.8% increase over 2018. It was the largest one-year increase in median income on record going back to 1967. It was also 45 percent more growth in a single year ($4,379) than Obama/Biden produced in their entire 8 years in office ($3,021

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.pdf

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-economy-mainstream-media-andy-puzder



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept
« Reply #379 on: October 13, 2020, 02:22:56 PM »
Census win in Trump's favor.

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1316124724473344003

Trump's judges are kicking ass now!

PPulatie


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Attkisson: Media Mistakes re Trump
« Reply #381 on: October 14, 2020, 02:02:38 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13126
    • View Profile
President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept, Amy Coney Barrett
« Reply #382 on: October 15, 2020, 09:07:37 AM »
Confirmation is another step but Trump did his job naming the best nominee.  No small feat.

The political benefit of Trump picking a great nominee may take a moment to set in. 

Three great nominees.  How does that happen?  Who will Joe pick?  He won't say.

Highlight film again:

Tough interview.  She nailed it.