No visitor logs for us! ...or tax returns, of course

othershoe1030 wrote:President Donald Trump's White House will not release its visitor logs, a senior administration official said Friday, breaking with President Barack Obama and raising concerns about transparency.
The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online. The senior official said the administration debated whether to release the records for several months.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/white-house-says-it-wont-make-visitor-logs-public-237235

No tax returns either. "Show us your tax returns" rallies called for tomorrow across the country. Hell will freeze over before we'll see them.There is no legal requirement to do so, and relying on him to do the traditional thing has no influence with him so we can forget that.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

othershoe1030 wrote:President Donald Trump's White House will not release its visitor logs, a senior administration official said Friday, breaking with President Barack Obama and raising concerns about transparency.
The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online. The senior official said the administration debated whether to release the records for several months.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/white-house-says-it-wont-make-visitor-logs-public-237235

No tax returns either. "Show us your tax returns" rallies called for tomorrow across the country. Hell will freeze over before we'll see them.There is no legal requirement to do so, and relying on him to do the traditional thing has no influence with him so we can forget that.

2seaoat wrote:Nothing happens until people start disrupting the normal flow.


So if people wanted to know what meetings were held at the Pentagon, it is just a matter of the people being more disruptive.   You should quit drinking and posting at the same time.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Meetings involving delicate negotiations with foreign governments could be carried on by state department and other cabinet level individuals. By the time agreements are nearly done I see no reason why the public should not know what our leaders are up to at least to the point of seeing who they are meeting with.

I do not trust the president we have now and know he has had dealings in his business life with some very unsavory characters. Too much of what goes on with that man is more secret than what we are accustomed to. Why should we give him more freedom to work behind the scenes in darkness than we would give to a more transparent administration?


I know you were speaking in generalities and not about 45 in particular but the more I think about it the more I think it should be a requirement that they release the list of visitors to the WH. We still naturally don't know what was discussed but at least we'd know who the players were. Could that hurt?

PkrBum wrote:Y'all are perfectly able to block I10 if you want. .. as long as I'm able to mow you down if I want.

One set of rules snowflakes.

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

Meetings involving delicate negotiations with foreign governments could be carried on by state department and other cabinet level individuals. By the time agreements are nearly done I see no reason why the public should not know what our leaders are up to at least to the point of seeing who they are meeting with.

I do not trust the president we have now and know he has had dealings in his business life with some very unsavory characters. Too much of what goes on with that man is more secret than what we are accustomed to. Why should we give him more freedom to work behind the scenes in darkness than we would give to a more transparent administration?


I know you were speaking in generalities and not about 45 in particular but the more I think about it the more I think it should be a requirement that they release the list of visitors to the WH. We still naturally don't know what was discussed but at least we'd know who the players were. Could that hurt?

Possibly!

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Y'all are perfectly able to block I10 if you want. .. as long as I'm able to mow you down if I want.

One set of rules snowflakes.

Communication is tricky. I keep waiting for your posts to make sense.

Snowflakes have been known to do impressive things when in large groups.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Y'all are perfectly able to block I10 if you want. .. as long as I'm able to mow you down if I want.

One set of rules snowflakes.

Communication is tricky. I keep waiting for your posts to make sense.

Snowflakes have been known to do impressive things when in large groups.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Blocking traffic (disruption) causes others harm. If your message can't be made peaceably... stfu.

What a mindbogglingly ignorant statement. Unless you're an unreconstructed racist cracker--which I suspect is probably the case--you'll have to admit that the civil rights movement of the 60s had an affirmative effect on American society. So let me cite a few examples where harming the rights of others worked to the benefit of all:

Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in '56:  This was the birth of the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience--the core principle of the movement--and it certainly harmed the property rights of the citizens of Montgomery by reducing revenue of the bus system until it had to choose between closing up shop and letting "nigras" sit in the front as well as the back of the bus.  

     [Let's keep score, shall we: del.capslock 1   pkrbitch 0]

Greensboro and Nashville Student Sit-ins from '58 to '60: The students, often against their parents wishes occupied ALL the stools at various lunch counters harming the rights of both the owners--no one else could use the seats to buy lunch--as well as the perceived rights of the racist majority. The actions provoked violence from the police and outraged white majority and brought national attention to the movement.

    [Where do we stand, let's see:  del.capslock 2   pkrbitch 0]

The Freedom Rides, summer of '61: These rides provoked mob violence which further increased pressure on the Federal government to redress this outrageous grievance. The riders wanted to integrate the interstate buses and the bus terminals. JFK eventually ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue an order to that effect. The rides damaged commerce and civil order when the citizens of various towns rioted and beat the riders. John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, Diane Nash and Julian Bond began to become prominent during this action.

        [Drum roll please:  del.capslock 3   pkrbitch  0]

The Voter Registration Campaign beginning in '62: These demonstrations happened all over the deep south and provoked riots, murders, arson and bombings. They led to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and The Voting Rights Act of '65 both of which enforced rights which were already enumerated in the Constitution. They severely damaged the rights of the white majority to maintain the status quo.

       [This is too easy:  del.capslock 4   pkrbitch  0]

The Birmingham Campaign in '63:  This was when a thousand high school students joined the protest march which stopped all activity in downtown Birmingham and provoked "Bull" Connor to unleash dogs on them. MLK wrote his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" during this action. Four months later the KKK bombed the 16th Street church.

      [C'mon, pkrbitch, get in the game:   del.capslock 5  pkrbitch 0]

The March on Washington in '63: This needs no explication. MLK made his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Washington was almost paralyzed for the whole weekend.

       [Game, set, match: del.capslock 6     pkrbitch  doodley-squat]

Need I go on?

You're an idiot, Pkrbitch, with ZERO grasp of historical or social progress.

My point in a previous post is that it's Civil DISobediance that gets the job done. Obeying the rules and meekly submitting to the restrictions put on protests gets you nowhere. Carrying signs and walking quietly on the sidewalk is a waste of energy.

del.capslock wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Blocking traffic (disruption) causes others harm. If your message can't be made peaceably... stfu.

What a mindbogglingly ignorant statement. Unless you're an unreconstructed racist cracker--which I suspect is probably the case--you'll have to admit that the civil rights movement of the 60s had an affirmative effect on American society. So let me cite a few examples where harming the rights of others worked to the benefit of all:

Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in '56:  This was the birth of the tradition of non-violent civil disobedience--the core principle of the movement--and it certainly harmed the property rights of the citizens of Montgomery by reducing revenue of the bus system until it had to choose between closing up shop and letting "nigras" sit in the front as well as the back of the bus.  

     [Let's keep score, shall we: del.capslock 1   pkrbitch 0]

Greensboro and Nashville Student Sit-ins from '58 to '60: The students, often against their parents wishes occupied ALL the stools at various lunch counters harming the rights of both the owners--no one else could use the seats to buy lunch--as well as the perceived rights of the racist majority. The actions provoked violence from the police and outraged white majority and brought national attention to the movement.

    [Where do we stand, let's see:  del.capslock 2   pkrbitch 0]

The Freedom Rides, summer of '61: These rides provoked mob violence which further increased pressure on the Federal government to redress this outrageous grievance. The riders wanted to integrate the interstate buses and the bus terminals. JFK eventually ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue an order to that effect. The rides damaged commerce and civil order when the citizens of various towns rioted and beat the riders. John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, Diane Nash and Julian Bond began to become prominent during this action.

        [Drum roll please:  del.capslock 3   pkrbitch  0]

The Voter Registration Campaign beginning in '62: These demonstrations happened all over the deep south and provoked riots, murders, arson and bombings. They led to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and The Voting Rights Act of '65 both of which enforced rights which were already enumerated in the Constitution. They severely damaged the rights of the white majority to maintain the status quo.

       [This is too easy:  del.capslock 4   pkrbitch  0]

The Birmingham Campaign in '63:  This was when a thousand high school students joined the protest march which stopped all activity in downtown Birmingham and provoked "Bull" Connor to unleash dogs on them. MLK wrote his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" during this action. Four months later the KKK bombed the 16th Street church.

      [C'mon, pkrbitch, get in the game:   del.capslock 5  pkrbitch 0]

The March on Washington in '63: This needs no explication. MLK made his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Washington was almost paralyzed for the whole weekend.

       [Game, set, match: del.capslock 6     pkrbitch  doodley-squat]

Need I go on?

You're an idiot, Pkrbitch, with ZERO grasp of historical or social progress.

My point in a previous post is that it's Civil DISobediance that gets the job done. Obeying the rules and meekly submitting to the restrictions put on protests gets you nowhere. Carrying signs and walking quietly on the sidewalk is a waste of energy.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

2seaoat wrote:I am in a minority.  I do not think transparency with who a president meets with is a good thing for a nation.  I have no problem with those type of record being released two years after the fact, but releasing people who are visiting puts America at a strategic disadvantage if they are close to the actual visits.

PkrBum wrote:Gotta love transparency... when it's the other team... lol.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Gotta love transparency... when it's the other team... lol.

What part of the original quote here, "The decision to withhold the records marks a drastic change from the Obama administration, which posted the visitor logs online," don't you understand???