Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of his 100 day plan is in progress or accomplished.
Accomplishments in the first month that are part of the 100 day plan:
Withdrew from TPP talks
Allowed Keystone and other energy projects to go forward
Hiring freeze on federal employees
Lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign countries by white house officials
Selected a Supreme Court nominee
Created a task force on violent crime
Think about your question. Who the two guys may be is not important. It is the information being communicated that is important, for you, me, others to judge along with all the rest...
This is why I call for specifics and why I consider your comment(s) even though you are obviously favorable about Trump. Right?
What is the point in considering your comments that are also subject to your obvious bias?
Well should I or shouldn't I?
Regardless the source or bias, if you want to get to the heart of these issues, you have to consider the facts objectively. For example, let's start with your #1 on your list (and thanks for something a bit more specific to consider beyond the bumper-sticker sentiments). Why in your opinion do you believe that WITHDRAWING from TPP talks is for the better rather than worse? Specifically.
... selected a Supreme Court nominee is evidence of Trump getting things done?
What of a national security adviser? What of the 631 openings among the 691 White House positions that still need filling?
Good for you and Trump that he picked a nominee for the vacancy in the Supreme Court, but I mean..., really?
If all you do is selectively pick some "wins" (not altogether well defined) and ignore all the rest, then on what basis can a rational balanced judgement ultimately be made about the success or failure of any POTUS, let alone Trump? I mean really...?
Corruption & Collusion:
Item #1: "propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress"--nope
Item #4: 5 year ban on White House & Congressional officials becoming lobbyists--only applies to "registered lobbyists"--officials are welcome to informally lobby after they leave government (something Obama protected against).
Items #5 & 6: already prohibited.
Item #2: Already, effectively, in place under Obama--federal civilian employment steadily declined during his Administration.
Item #3: order signed, sure--let's see what happens.
Workers: Item #1: sure, "intention" announced. No progress made.
Item #2: yep, that was done--misguided, but done.
Item #3: well, if it was "directed," then Secretary of the Treasury is insubordinate. Mnuchin said usual process will be followed--which would not find China to be a currency manipulator.
Item #4: meaningless--let's see what Commerce & US Trade Rep. do.
Item #5: vague--what restrictions?
Item #6: Clinton was not involved, but we will see.
Item #7: needs Congress--haven't seen anything yet.
Security & constitutional "rule of law": Item #1: there either were none, or there's no progress on this.
Item #2: process indeed begun.
Item #3: nope--and needs Congress.
Item #4: not yet.
Item #5: this was tried--and a lot more--in the immigration order snafu; it has been smacked down by the courts.
Legislative agenda: There are 10 legislative measures listed that "will be passed in the first 100 days." None have been passed. As far as I can tell, none of them have been proposed by the White House.
You said there was no Muslim ban in the "contract." There was a Muslim ban on the website (and he said it during the campaign). The ban wasn't removed from the website until after the election. Muslim ban statement 'removed' from Donald Trump's website
Do you really not remember the campaign?
See below for the Trump attempt to kick out legal immigrants.
As for approval ratings, Republicans are not most Americans. He's down to 43 approval & 52 disapproval. He hasn't been in the black since the immigration order.
Keep in mind, most Presidents are at their peak popularity at inauguration.
Trump's Executive Order attempted to kick out legal immigrants--permanent residents, people with student visas, and people with work visas. It's the largest policy he actually tried to implement, and the reason the courts have stopped it is that he was trying to kick out legal immigrants without any process. Not only has he been a loose cannon verbally, but the actual order is itself a loose cannon.
The 9th Circuit goes on to find that the government failed to show the District Court's ruling was in error.
Thanks. Really...
Wouldn't it be nice if the truth of these matters really mattered to people a bit more than seems to be the case, and that the truth could be considered objectively rather than undermined by confirmation bias?
RE: Trump's executive order, I'm no expert, but it does not read to me as an attempt "to kick out legal immigrants," though I know it was ill-conceived, poorly executed and altogether more bad than any good all considered.
Oh my god, guys! I can't believe all the naysayers on this thread. Trump is good and Trump is getting things done. Why? Because he told you so.
I don't take either side as far as parties go.
Seriously. What a joke. There has to come a point in time that you realize that Trump is flat out telling lies for the most part. He conducts himself like a horses @ss in public and is making our great country look like a joke to the rest of the world. What good can come of this? Admit it, you've been snookered
Oh my god, guys! I can't believe all the naysayers on this thread. Trump is good and Trump is getting things done. Why? Because he told you so.
I don't take either side as far as parties go.
Seriously. What a joke. There has to come a point in time that you realize that Trump is flat out telling lies for the most part. He conducts himself like a horses @ss in public and is making our great country look like a joke to the rest of the world. What good can come of this? Admit it, you've been snookered
No! You've just been brainwashed by the liberal media like all the rest of the people who can't see the good that is Trump and how he is really making America great again!
I'll save the key strokes for the next Trump supporter who will tell you so, and mean it!
No! You've just been brainwashed by the liberal media like all the rest of the people who can't see the good that is Trump and how he is really making America great again!
I'll save the key strokes for the next Trump supporter who will tell you so, and mean it!
Just admit he conducts himself like a back end of a horse and has been caught in multiple lies and we'll be done.
I'll save you some key strokes. Blah blah blah fake news.
I can't wait until Mexico pays for the 12 billion dollar wall. That will be my favorite part of the next four years (if he lasts that long).
Wouldn't it be nice if the truth of these matters really mattered to people a bit more than seems to be the case, and that the truth could be considered objectively rather than undermined by confirmation bias?
RE: Trump's executive order, I'm no expert, but it does not read to me as an attempt "to kick out legal immigrants," though I know it was ill-conceived, poorly executed and altogether more bad than any good all considered.
Or show me where in the executive order it is clear the attempt was/is to remove legal immigrants from the States.
We have to get a little technical here, but it's this, in section 3(c):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Executive Order
To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
The operative language is what starts with "I hereby proclaim . . ." So, "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from [7 countries] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, [of those people, unless they are diplomats or government officials].
Not just people who are immigrating (which includes those who hold work visas and student visas), but people who are entering as nonimmigrants (i.e., permanent residents and maybe even dual citizens).
But there's more: this order bars "aliens from countries." That doesn't mean people who currently live in those countries--it means people who are citizens of those countries (i.e., hold those passports). So a child born in Iraq, who came to the US at the age of 2 and has been here for 40 years, becoming an adult? Barred by the plain language of the order. And, in fact, DHS was detaining and barring the entry of people with work visas, student visas, and permanent residency.
Section 3(c) is what the 9th Circuit focused on in its analysis of the Due Process implications of the Executive Order. After issuing the Order, the White House Counsel claimed, essentially, that it doesn't mean what it says. That was a major prong of the Administration's argument in court--that we wrote "aliens from" these countries, but we didn't mean it to include people with visas and permanent residence. The Court correctly pointed out that the White House Counsel has no authority to change the President's Order, nor is the White House Counsel anywhere in the chain of command between the President and the agencies that carry out the order. Thus this argument failed.
This and your comment prior to this one do remind me of how supporters of Obama compare and/or contrast with Trump, and in some ways you are right, but in other ways you are wrong. Of course these sorts of statements much like yours are for the most part meaningless without specifics, so if you want to make your case for Trump, please do more than explain he is doing what he promised. Executive Orders, as Obama proved with his to close Guantanamo Bay, are not what makes for doing what was promised. Pulling out of Iraq as "promised," passing the ACA as "promised," those are the sort of specifics and "promises" kept that you need to be specific about. Also note that the Republicans kept Obama from closing Guantanamo, and "Obama doesn't get credit for that." Obama failed to keep that "promise," along with a few others...
.
He's been in office a month. As you know, to arrive at any kind of finished product takes time in the DC cesspool, so if you are only going to accept a finished product as proof that he is doing what he promised, wait a while.
Do you think Trump's promise to build a big wall and have Mexico pay for it was a good or bad thing to say and/or promote?
Good, for certain!
Quote:
Is it a good or bad thing that Trump rallies support that way regardless the truth that Mexico was/is obviously not going to pay for that wall, if it actually gets built?
We'll see who pays for it. Maybe you're right, but I don't care who pays for it, it needs to be built.
Quote:
Is it good or bad that Trump has instantly offended one of our best trading partners and neighbor sharing our border just to our South?
Good! It's time that the rest of the world stops leaching off America and that we get ours too! For too long we have been taken advantage of and all these other countries just got used to it. The spigot to the feeding trough needs turned off. Time we look out for ours too.
Quote:
Good or bad to offend all Hispanics and Muslims as he has all through his campaign?
Trump has said or done nothing that should have offended either group.....
Quote:
Does it seem good or bad to you that Trump is fueling protests left and right, whether it be women, the LGBT community, Hispanics, Muslims, people at airports
If I decide to protest you because I don't like you, can you be blamed for my protesting?
Quote:
No sooner in office, he also offends the entire intelligence community..., you know, the people we rely on to provide that safety Trump supporters seem so fearful about.
The same intelligence community that's now leaking information anonymously? The same intelligence community that lied to congress and said they weren't spying on the American people?
Why do people put such blind faith in these governmental institutions? As if they are beyond reproach or something and no one is allowed to question them at all, ever. I say boloney.
Quote:
Also the press, "the worst liars of all" (or some more nonsense like that)
They are. It's high time that the press drops the façade and just admits who they really are and what they are really doing... The press needs to stop pretending that they are just a neutral entity, the noble "fourth estate", only trying to report the facts. No, the press, as Bannon called them, are the opposition party, especially to this administration, but to Republicans in general. The press have chosen a side and they advocate for it every day, and they misrepresent facts and write stories that are favorable to their chosen side.... They should quit pretending otherwise and just be honest about it. And Trump is one of the few Republicans that's not willing to go along with their ruse and calls them out on it. I have no problem with that.
Quote:
Is it good or bad that all this Russian connection business also marks Trump's first days in office?
Irrelevant. Prove the connection, then I'll have something to say about it. Until then, the aforementioned press ( opposition party ) is anxious to take a crumb and turn it in to a cake, and to jump on and exaggerate any story they can, because they are the opposition.
Quote:
You also like all the tweeting?
Yes, I like that a president has found a way to connect directly with the American people and not have to rely on the press to get his message out.
Just admit he conducts himself like a back end of a horse and has been caught in multiple lies and we'll be done.
I'll save you some key strokes. Blah blah blah fake news.
I can't wait until Mexico pays for the 12 billion dollar wall. That will be my favorite part of the next four years (if he lasts that long).
Admit what???
Like commented before (see #81), we don't accept your premise, and it eats you up...
Blah, blah, blah..., it's all about making America great again, and that's all we need to keep remembering.
Also, it takes a back end of a horse in order to make the front end of a horse to move forward...
You're obviously one of those liberal elites that can't understand common sense. Probably don't even watch Fox News! Sheesh...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
