Kelly sworn in as Trump's second chief of staff By Dan Merica, CNN Updated 10:17 PM ET, Mon July 31, 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/john-kelly-chief-of-staff/index.html John Kelly was sworn in as President Donald Trump's new chief of staff Monday, tasked with bringing order to an often chaotic White House and jump-starting the President's stalled legislative agenda. "We look forward to, if it is possible, even a better job as chief of staff," Trump said of his former secretary of homeland security. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that his administration has "done very well," noting the stock market, unemployment and business confidence. A general's rigor could face hurdles under a chaos-prone boss "We have a tremendous base, we have a tremendous group of support, the country is optimistic and I think the general will just add to it. The country is doing very well. Strongest stock market ever," Trump said. He added: "We will proceed and we will keep going but we have a fantastic leader, chief of staff, he is going to do a really great job." Republicans on Capitol Hill hope Kelly, a retired United States Marine Corps general known for his fastidious nature, will bring order to a White House where disorder -- in the eyes of those on the Hill -- has led to few legislative victories and slumping poll numbers. Kelly's resume leads many to believe he has the chops to turn the White House around; he served as the commander of United States Southern Command for four years under President Barack Obama and served as a commanding general in Iraq from 2008 to 2009. President Donald Trump talks with new White House chief of staff John Kelly after he was privately sworn in during a ceremony in the Oval Office on Monday, July 31, 2017, in Washington. Trump campaigned for president as the ultimate political outsider and promised his history as a real estate magnate in New York would make it easy for him to strike a host of deals with lawmakers in Washington. The reality has been anything but. Trump's legislative agenda, capped by a failure to pass a health care plan, has languished on Capitol Hill and Trump will likely leave for his August vacation without passing a sweeping legislative win. It was those failures that helped lead to the decision to have Kelly take over for Reince Priebus, who was ousted from the job after only six months on Friday. New order at WH front and center as Kelly takes helm Priebus, the former Republican National Committee chair, was brought in as Trump's first chief of staff because he had the deep relations with Republicans in Washington the outsider President lacked. The former chief of staff told CNN that he tendered his resignation on Thursday but the President surprised Washington when he announced the move on Twitter Friday shortly after a trip to New York. "I am pleased to inform you that I have just named General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff," Trump tweeted. "He is a Great American... and a Great Leader. John has also done a spectacular job at Homeland Security. He has been a true star of my Administration." The move caps months of speculation that Priebus' hold on his job was weak given internal White House chaos, continued leaks and the fact the former RNC chair was not always in sync with longtime Trump aides and advisers. "The President wanted to go a different direction," Priebus told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Friday evening. "A president has a right to hit a reset button. I think it's a good time to hit the reset button. I think he was right to hit the reset button." Who is John Kelly, Trump's new chief of staff? Kelly comes in with high expectations that his general's sense of hierarchy can bring order to a President who has long thrived on chaos and countless opinions. But bringing order to the Trump White House will be a tall order, given both Trump's reliance on voices outside the White House and the fact Trump has more assistants to the President -- a senior role in the White House -- than any modern commander in chief. Trump has at least 26 assistants, including family members like Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Obama had 22 assistants during his first year in office, while former President George W. Bush had as many as 17 assistants. Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager and a ever-present outside adviser, said Sunday that his advice to Kelly would be don't try to change Trump. "The thing that General Kelly should do is not try to change Donald Trump," he said. "I say you have to let Trump be Trump. That is what has made him successful over the last 30 years. That is what the American people voted for. And anybody who thinks they're going to change Donald Trump doesn't know Donald Trump." Questions remain about the kind of power Kelly will have in the White House, particularly whether the sprawling world of Trump's advisers will report through the general or directly to Trump. Sources told CNN that many of Trump's top advisers are fully bought into the chief of staff change, but little clarity has been provided about the reporting structure. "Jared and Ivanka are very supportive of him (Kelly) coming in and have a tremendous amount of admiration for him and will follow his lead on how he wants things done," a source told CNN on Sunday. "They will follow his lead. They want this to work." Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's new communications director who publicly sparred with Priebus in a obscenity-laden tirade to a reporter, has said that he will report directly to Trump. Looking to push the idea Kelly will have authority within the West Wing, a senior administration official said Trump has given "Gen. Kelly full authority." Trump pushed back against the idea that his White House was in chaos on Monday, tweeting a string of purported successes - including a booming stock market and low unemployment - before adding, "No WH chaos!"
Now does this dummy not realise the BIGGEST beneficiaries of AA are ww??? So an AA ban will hurt whites the MOST!! Whites make up the BIGGEST percentage of legacy admissions also. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-action-justice-department-college-admissions
Wasn't this just a report? Like SI saying he called the whitehouse a "dump." Anyway I read that they are investigating discrimination against white applicants from certain colleges. They'll find nothing that will give them a dog in this fight if they are looking to end AA. His and Sessions ignorance won't work here and will be met with more outrage than anything else he is doing. Affirmative Action isn't race based, it's protection against race based. It's a shame we need it, but it's also a shame racism is apart of the power structure in the U.S.
This is just more red meat for Trump's base, those White male Red staters who now think they're the victims of reverse discrimination. All affirmative action says is that race can be considered as a positive attribute in the admissions process. Most colleges try to build a diverse, representative student body that reflects the demographics of the USA. No Black student is ever accepted to college just because they're Black, a belief that is highly racist to begin with. But if you are a Black student who academically qualifies for admission, you race can and will be considered a positive factor. To be truthful, ALL colleges look at the race and ethnicity of every applicant to make sure the build a representative study body. For instance, most colleges want a 50/50 ratio of male to female students. They want students from all over the country and not just one region where the school is located. That's why in many cases a student has a better chance getting into a UC school if they apply from the East Coast than if they lived in L.A. They want a certain amount of White students, Black, Asian, Hispanic and Native American. For a student to get in once that quota has been met, they have to be an usual applicant. Like an athlete, a musician, a vet, an international student, or they have a skill or talent that will be used for the benefit of their school. I knew a couple kids in college who were considered future members of the U.S. Olympic team who said the fact they were nationally ranked in judo or fencing definitely helped them get in. No college has a purely blind admissions process based solely on academic performance and standardized test scores, although many conservatives try to sell that crap to their voters. For the Justice Department to claim they're going to pursue cases where White students are unduly discriminated against in the college admissions process is hilarious. A girl I used to date in undergrad used to argue that if a college admitted 10 White students and 3 Black and you as a White applicant didn't get in, you shouldn't be challenging the admissions of those 3 Black students. That White student with the rejection letter should wonder why those 10 other White students got in ahead of you. Another disgusting example that voting in presidential elections matters. To be honest, even if conservatives got rid of affirmative action, most colleges would still use it on their own to diversify their student body. I almost kind of wish they would get rid of it so conservatives would have nothing to bitch about and still be forced to wonder how a non-White student got in over them.
Unfortunately once they believe things there is nothing that can change their mind. Like them believing that the Black Panther Party is racist hate group. You can show as much evidence as possible, as much knowledge and it will be like talking to programmed person that's stuck on stupid. They are gleeful in ignorance that they mistake for intelligence ALL because the party or people they follow tell them what and how to think.
Donald Trump to African American and Hispanic voters: ‘What do you have to lose?’ I feel like, under Obama, liberals like me (not just Black or Hispanic voters) got so tired of only getting half of what we wanted that we forgot what it's like to get nothing.
Good. That's exactly what you get for taking your eyes off the prize. Now we're actually behind where we were under Obama, including a SCOTUS seat gone, and re-litigating shit that should have been set in stone decades ago: affirmative action, Medicare, Medicaid, women's reproductive rights, Wall Street regulations, and so on. For-profit prisons set to be outlawed under Obama, back in business. Cold War status quo re: Cuba, back in business. Marijuana re-criminalized. Etc etc etc. Bernie and Stein ain't helping anybody except Russia and their own bank accounts.
Yes, even I feel there is some justification. There are definitely liberals who behave as if they must get everything they want or they'll take their ball and go home (or rather, they won't vote). But look at the other side: white evangelical christians never get EXACTLY what they want. I guess exactly what they want would be someone like Ted Cruz. So even if Trump isn't their ideal candidate they vote for him anyway. They vote in the midterms, they vote in local elections, they vote and vote and vote. And despite the fact that Republicans are only ~30% of the electorate now, they are hugely overrepresented in our government because a lot of liberals get pouty when they don't get exactly what they want.
l know the lens here is that only two races exist in the world and it's always White people's fault, but are you aware of the multiple lawsuits filed by Asians? Below, is the one line that has some declaring: "Trump to BAN Affirmative Action"! Quote: “The Department of Justice will always review credible allegations of discrimination on the basis of any race.” Unquote That's it. That's been the law. On the books. It was an internal memo citing the policy. Here it is, in full: The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” ************ "Hours later, the Justice Department issued a statement saying the posting was in response to a complaint filed in 2015 regarding allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans in an unidentified university’s admissions practices." The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview. “The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman" Furthermore, AB, this investigation has been going on for one year due to the volume of Asian Lawsuits: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/princeton-is-scrambling-to-block-release-of-admission-records.html Excerpt: Princeton is one of several elite colleges embroiled in battles with Students for Fair Admissions, which has filed a slew of lawsuits and complaints against schools like Harvard, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Yale, Dartmouth, and Brown. The complaints allege that the schools unfairly discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions process — particularly against Asian-Americans. The Education Department did its own investigation into the allegations against Princeton, the lawsuit says, and concluded the university didn't discriminate on the basis of race. But even if it isn't incriminating, the data collected for that investigation is likely to be extremely controversial in the obsessive world of elite college admissions. "Everyone want to see what goes on behind the curtain," said Mimi Doe, the president of Top Tier Admissions, a college admissions advising company. While it is generally known that top schools give applicants numeric grades and rankings, Doe said, "We haven't seen the qualitative piece of this — the unspoken quotas. What will probably come out is that, for years, colleges have been — just as they did in the 1940s with Jews — saying, 'we don't want this person, because this is a stereotypical Asian applicant.' These kids are penalized because of their race."
Exactly. Republicans know that it's a game of inches. Far-leftists stayed home in 2010, 2012 and 2016, saddled Obama with a hostile GOP congress, tanked the election for Obama's successor, who ran on continuing his policies, and are now crying that they didn't get what they wanted including single-payer, which is magically supposed to pass with that same GOP-majority house and senate, and a conservative-majority Supreme Court. I was researching this for another board. Pat Buchanan was an (I) who ran as a GOP in 1996 and dropped out when he got 21% of the primary vote. Bernie (I) got only 13% of the Dem primary vote and stayed in. Here we are now. Socialism rocks.
They a) hated Bush/Cheney and b) wanted to be able to say they looked beyond race and voted for a black man in 2008. By 2010, they were "disappointed." St. Bernie wanted Obama primaried in 2012.
Bliss, it's not that colleges don't want Asians. What they don't want is Asians to be overrepresented on their campuses. At schools like UCLA and Berkley, for example, although Asians represent less than 6% of the U.S. population and 11% of California, they make up over 40% of the student population at the aforementioned schools. What's worse is that nearly half of all HS grads from California are Black or Latino. So a great state school like UCLA is failing its core mission to educate its residents. California passed Prop 209 in 1997 in favor of colorblind admissions and this was the result. What's funny is when Affirmative Action became a part of U.S. law in 1961, it was meant to remedy centuries of racial discrimination experienced by Blacks. Now anyone who's a non-White male believes they should be considered for college admissions under AA.smh This is a great article from Columbia on the 7 myths about Affirmative Action. http://www.columbia.edu/content/seven-myths-about-affirmative-action-universities.html (The fourth myth discussed is particularly insightful.) I was under the impression that private universities weren't subject to affirmative action policies,(although they do rigorously practice them) due to the First Amendment. Look, I know it sucks if you're Asian, have a 4.2 GPA, graduate top 5% of your HS class and have near perfect SAT scores and still don't get into the school of your choice, despite it appearing you achieved all the academic criteria. However grades and high test scores isn't enough. And I don't think this lawsuit will force any university to reveal the details of their admissions selection process. According to the Columbia U. article, below is but a general list of the qualifications applicants need for admission to elite public and private universities. Notice many of these categories can be broadly interpreted; High school grade point average; The rigor of the high school courses taken; Alumni relationships (parent, sibling, or grandparent); Quality of the essay; Personal achievement; Leadership and service; Socio-economically disadvantaged student or education; Athletic ability; Underrepresented racial or ethnic minority identity or education; and Residency in an under-represented region. Seriously, one of the best ways to get into a top 10 school is to move someplace like South Dakota for HS.
