Trump’s inaugural – USA Gov Policy

A first-hand report by New York Analysis of Policy & Government’s

editor-in-chief, Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D.

I covered, live, both President Trump’s inaugural address from the Capitol, and its protesters.

My work began before I left my home in New York City. Flights and trains were already booked (and it would have been impossible to find parking in D.C.) so I took an interstate bus.

My cab driver to the terminal had, decades ago, emigrated from the Dominican Republic, and was now a U.S. citizen. He mentioned that, to the dismay of his friends, he supported Trump. “Things keep getting worse in this country, especially over the last eight years. It’s time for a big change,” he stated.

The bus (which broke down in New Jersey and had to be replaced) was largely populated by protesters, some of whom were heading to McPherson Square to demonstrate during the inaugural, while others planned to take part in the women’s march the following day. Many wore buttons that bore obscene phrases about the (then) president-elect, while others had signs accusing Trump of being a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe, or a misogynist.

I asked a number of the passengers which Trump statements or policies led them to their concerns. The responses generally fell into one of four categories: 1) Trump was a billionaire, which they felt made him incapable of understanding the concerns of everyday people, 2) he was a Republican, which they believed automatically made him despicable, 3) his statements about gaining control of the borders meant he was a white supremacist.

It was the fourth category which had the most respondents, however: the presidency should have gone to Hillary Clinton, and both the fact that Trump won, and at times during the campaign, personally criticized her was, to them, unacceptable. They were particularly galled when he called her a “nasty woman,” and several had buttons which read “A nasty woman against Trump.”

Trump’s speech was certainly not hard-core conservative. It was filled with references about infrastructure and neglected American workers.

An objective analysis of the speech reveals two main targets of his blunt comments.
But back to our point as to how to purchase cialis in spain http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/soviette/? In today’s techno savvy world it’s becoming more and more tiring to actually go to your local pharmacy or superstore. Another common problem that can happen after gallbladder removal is fundamental. secretworldchronicle.com order levitra online For buy cipla viagra finding out a solution to the issue man needs to discuss various solutions available. levitra viagra price Some require the use of catheters that enter the veins through tiny incisions and then help close the vein by radiofrequency heat.
First, both Democrat and Republican legislators and bureaucrats who had made lucrative and extended careers by centering power in Washington while not delivering (and even obstructing) solutions to the nation’s problems. Trump stated, “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people … We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.”

Second, the governments of nations who had enriched themselves by both engaging in unfair economic policies towards America, while at the same time benefiting from U.S. assistance.

The new President also overturned eight years of White House reluctance by condemning, in no uncertain terms, “Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.” The response from the crowd was visceral, loud, and deeply favorable. Indeed, the ethnically diverse crowd I was with at the Capitol responded enthusiastically to just about every phrase.

Interestingly enough, the loudest and most sustained “boos” for the invited dignitaries were not aimed at Ms. Clinton, but for Senator Charles Schumer, who included a number of subtle criticisms of the new President in his guest remarks. Schumer remains unpopular with many for his 2014 legislative proposal which would have weakened First Amendment protections for certain types of political speech.

After the ceremony, I went to McPherson Square, where the mood was decidedly different. An angry protest crowd included a number of groups which shouted epithets at police officers, journalists, and passersby (who, if they wore business attire, were apparently considered pro-Trump.)

Most of their signs and banners, rather than criticizing specific policies, tended to be general or profane comments about Trump, his family, and Republicans in general. What distinguished those protesting this inauguration from those in the past was the general lack of specificity. It seemed to be more of a collective temper tantrum on the part of the left that the American electorate had dared to disagree with them.

Many media reports appear to have understated the size of those who attended to be part of those supporting the new president. This is nothing new. Major news outlets have consistently engaged in the inappropriate practice of intentionally understating crowds at conservative-oriented events, and drastically overstating attendance at leftist-oriented gatherings.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.