Executive Order on Lobbying Signed-Removing the Swamp!

a reply to: ksiezyc

Unfortunately, this isn't draining the swamp. I was listening to some talk on the radio about this yesterday. Trump basically signed the exact same restrictions (nearly word for word) that Bill Clinton did in 93. W did something very similar in 2001, and Obama signed even more far reaching regulations on lobbying in 2009.

Basically, all presidents write this EO and it's nothing more than a reaffirmation of laws already in place. It ultimately doesn't matter because it contains several loopholes.

originally posted by: ttobban
There is nothing to satisfy an all or nothing persona with such complex life occurrences.
I hope that you can find peace to come together with all humans.

I am at peace. Looking at something and judging it for what it actually is has nothing to do with an all or nothing persona.

Constantly pointing out where others fail and offering no remedies yourself...

That is a cop out. One doesn't have to offer a solution in order to point out that what someone else offered isn't a solution either.

originally posted by: hellobruce
How does Trump's EO on ethics compare with the ones by previous Presidents?

Trump has barely discussed ethics on the campaign trail, and not at all since being elected. This current EO on lobbying is both less encompassing than Obama's, and contains nothing on ethics like Obama's did.

So, it doesn't compare favorably.

a reply to: daskakik

Well, nothing has been done yet about it, but some papers are in place to offer up a change to the standard in place currently.

I could really care less how and when its done... I appreciate an effort at all. I don't even support Trump... I support peace for all. The irony of Trump hating, is that these verbal debates of policy would very likely be debates of nuclear war preparations if Clinton was voted in.

We are forced to let time play out and see where the future takes us... no matter the decision. But stopping a current trend to ail hardships, in my opinion, is a vote for the opposition to carry on with its long withstanding tyrannies. That means, I in part, see your side of the debate as being 'PRO DIVIDE'.

Revolutionalists don't necessarily care to obtain results to be viewed as 'correct' or 'mainstream acceptable'... revolutionalists are willing to rip a few band-aids off and fight off infection... just on the off chance that its easier for our children to fight in future generations.

a reply to: daskakik

That is a cop out. One doesn't have to offer a solution in order to point out that what someone else offered isn't a solution either.

These people in Govt. write laws that can both hurt us public or help us .Surely they are not going to write laws that would or could hurt themselves .

a reply to: daskakik

What you are posting, is essentially like going on a hiking trip, stepping in a pile of crap, then tiring out your companions with incessant whining about the smell of the lingering poop within shoe treads... meanwhile another 2 miles of ground could have possibly been gained.

Sorry... I know you love analogies.

I can see why he would throw this bone out. You dont need lobbyists if you skip over them and pull the people from the top straight into the administration.

a reply to: ttobban

Meh, something in place that doesn't change anything is the same as nothing being done.

a reply to: ttobban

No, me pointing out that this EO does nothing does not advance or hold back anything.

I don't hate all analogies, just bad ones.

a reply to: daskakik
Meh... a word equivalent to when teens say... 'WHATEVER'.

See... your wrong, because something can not add up to nothing. Now, are you twisting something/nothing to be defined as right/wrong? Conflicts see no ease when each side is vying for different definitions of what is what.

Nothing being done would equate to us not even talking about this right now, because an action or intent was not recently established as was, in fact, established.

Very seldom do I use the term... you are wrong. In this case it is warranted, because the math of something equating to nothing does not add up. Therefore, you are mathematically incorrectly debating... which only leads to an invalid outcome. That means, I have at least a small chance of being right, while you have zero chance of being right. Math does not lie.

Well, this ends my daily debating... sorry to cut it off here, its been fun. I will move to valiantly investigate my shoe treads for poop on the off chance I can clean them. Or should I just throw them out? Nevermind... I will try what I feel is best, thanks anyway.

It would be more effective if it also worked retroactively... that no one that acted as a lobbyist for any industry in the 5 years before seeking public office. Good thing that Trump already filled his cabinet with the swamp.

originally posted by: ttobban
Meh... a word equivalent to when teens say... 'WHATEVER'.

Exactly.

Math does not lie.

Lame. This isn't math. Even if it was, "no change" does not mean "nothing", as in the absence of something.

You are reaching for straws. Oh yeah, not actual straws, just in case that was going to be part of your response.

Lifetime ban is not really possible, it's judicially impractical.

Ten years ban - that's 2-1/2 Presidential terms - if someone still has connections after that length of time...

Just PLEASE tell me it's an executable offense! Okay, just the foreign agent part, 20 year minimum on domestic.

Yep, I think that about does it.

Next up: going straight to work for GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS!!!!! (One can Hope)

ganjoa

Hopefully it will finally end the gun-lobby

originally posted by: Grimpachi
That is one EO I can agree with I only hope there are no loopholes in it.

Of course there's a YUGE loophole:

Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person.

(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President or his designee.

(c) A copy of the waiver certification shall be furnished to the person covered by the waiver and provided to the head of the agency in which that person is or was appointed to serve.

Link to EO.

Translation: "If you quit in protest, or if I fire you, you cannot return to your previous job for five years. If you play ball, I can sign a waiver when you leave and you can start lobbying for the foreign nation of your choice on Day One."

And some of you think this worthless piece of paper will "drain the swamp."

I wondered about this

In a joint statement Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Chair Norman Eisen and Vice-Chair Richard Painter say that "while there are things to like in the Trump [executive order], it tears two major loopholes in the Obama executive order on ethics it replaces."

They say it removes Obama's ban on lobbyists going to work for the agencies they had lobbied and also gets rid of revolving door restrictions on people who don't go on to become registered lobbyists but do work to "influence the system." Eisen and Painter call it "shadow lobbying."

They conclude that "Mr. Trump's [executive order], while it has some positive features, does not live up to his promise to drain the swamp."

So, shadow lobbying still can happen.

This is interesting

[W]hen it came to picking language for the "waivers" section of the order, Trump's team chose the language used by Clinton, with one notable exception. Trump's executive order doesn't require waivers to be published in the Federal Register, meaning it will be harder for the public and press to determine whether the Trump administration is taking advantage of the loopholes written into the executive order. Obama's order didn't require the waivers to be published in the Federal Register either, but the Obama administration had a practice of posting them on the internet and required an annual report from the Office of Government Ethics. Trump's doesn't contain the reporting language.

So, they cover their tracks.

hahaha and people thought Trump would somehow be more ethical than the people he criticized! Trump has always been a self-promoter, marketing himself as his brand, why would he claim he isn't the "greatest" and ruin his brand? From the time he entered the race he was someone who would say anything, do anything to promote himself. That is how business marketing works, and when it chooses to act unethically, well, then you buy a crappy product under the assumption that it's "the best" and "wonderful" and will do everything it was "promised to do". Well, we're stuck with the old Fraud now.

Trump's Executive Order On Ethics Pulls Word For Word From Obama, Clinton

The only thing I ever liked about Trump was the whole drain the swamp gimmick. I hope he expands on this because so far this means nothing.

The first numbers are now available for 2017 and the amount of registered lobbyists in DC is at an all time low : Lobbying Database

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

How about that?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't know about an all time low. According to this graph it is still way high.