View Full Version : Trumps first 100 days
flowerseverywhere
10-23-16, 3:40am
I could not find a good concise explanation to link to, but for those who are following the election, what proposals could Trump reasonably accomplish? Especially quickly?
building a wall ( obviously more than 100 days)
deporting 2 million illegal immigrants
tax cuts
streamlining government
jailing Hillary
repealing Obamacare
congressional term limits through a constitutional amendment
repealing every Obama executive order
Extreme vetting
I find the comments that follow news stories to be fascinating. Many people really think someone could waltz in and immediately make massive changes. Like it's so easy even a caveman could do it. I think for many of these there are legal challenges to consider. The president only has so much power ( thankfully for whomever gets in.).
I don't think Trump will win, so the question is, as Mr. Jackson used to say, moot.
That has been one of my concerns, long before he totally started to implode in the media. He does not understand how government works. He wants to run it like a business or a dictator. He sees collaboration and working with others as a weakness instead of a strength. I am not sure he could do any of them, he may make a dent in some executive orders. He could certainly increase fear and support deportations since they are already happening. I have a vision of him trying his style with seasoned politicians and ending up in the time out room with other toddlers, he would get much farther using proxys to get anything done.
Honestly the big issues will probably not change no matter who is president, guns and abortion. It would take a lot of meeting of the minds to make any changes there. So we could look at our education system that has not been teaching civics as much and so people don't understand how the government works! My personal and local issue really is the changes (not good) in education over the last decade.
I spent the last two evenings with almost everyone who's anyone in the US intelligence/special forces community. Both the operations and the analytical sides.
They don't appear to support Trump at all, don't seem to think he has a snowball's chance in New Delhi of winning, and don't think he'd accomplish anything of use.
I do hope the American people do not place these fine men and women into the hands of Trump.
I don't like Trump at all, but can see a possibility of some good coming from his presidency. Not in the first 100 days, but from the possibility that he would make such a mess of things that we could white board and start from scratch once he's done. Order from chaos. But we are indeed probably destined for more of the same mediocrity.
iris lilies
10-23-16, 10:29am
Wait--OP, you think The Donald has thoughts about streamlining government? Realisitc thoughts? I am intrigued if it is anything other than
Trump bluster.
Donald isnt a small government guy, that I have seen, anyway.
Also, Donald has walked back that "deport 2 millions illegals" thing rather obviously. Now he says we concentrate on badnicks, you know, those those bad hombres, and boot them out of the country, then see where we stand.
iris lilies
10-23-16, 10:30am
I spent the last two evenings with almost everyone who's anyone in the US intelligence/special forces community. Both the operations and the analytical sides.
They don't appear to support Trump at all, don't seem to think he has a snowball's chance in New Delhi of winning, and don't think he'd accomplish anything of use.
I do hope the American people do not place these fine men and women into the hands of Trump.
I figured that someone would take him out even if he did get into the White House, someone from this community of which you speak.
Those guys have no more insight into the next
white House resident than you or I.
flowerseverywhere
10-23-16, 10:56am
Wait--OP, you think The Donald has thoughts about streamlining government? Realisitc thoughts? I am intrigued if it is anything other than
Trump bluster.
Donald isnt a small government guy, that I have seen, anyway.
Also, Donald has walked back that "deport 2 millions illegals" thing rather obviously. Now he says we concentrate on
badnicks, you know, those those bad hombres, and boot them out of the country, then see where we stand.
actually, I think he walked back on the 11 million and wants to first concentrate on the 2 million"bad hombres". I find a great deal of difficulty finding the exact message.
I see see Many Trump signs and polls (for what they are worth) that show a lot of support, in fact not far behind Hillary.
My my first thought on all the proposals that the legal system, as well as the multiple insults he has given to people who will remain in power and he has to work with would make his wish list almost impossible.
What at I am truly hoping for is after the election both parties get their act together and try to figure out what happened. The voters are not a happy bunch with congress and both candidates with poor approval ratings.
flowerseverywhere
10-23-16, 11:03am
I spent the last two evenings with almost everyone who's anyone in the US intelligence/special forces community. Both the operations and the analytical sides.
They don't appear to support Trump at all, don't seem to think he has a snowball's chance in New Delhi of winning, and don't think he'd accomplish anything of use.
I do hope the American people do not place these fine men and women into the hands of Trump.
we can only hope(and vote). We have too much street level unrest and too many kooks out there to put any of the people who serve our nation in these capacities as well as our military and police in any more danger than they face.
A Trump Administration seems highly unlikely at this point. Of course, in a year that the Nobel for Literature can go to a pop singer and the Chicago Cubs can go to the World Series, anything seems possible.
I suspect that Mr. Trump would discover, as Mr. Obama did, that US presidents are not kings. I could see Trump reversing some of Obama’s arbitrary executive orders with some arbitrary executive orders of his own. I would expect about an equal amount of petulant whining about a lack of cooperation in working his will on the country. Other than that, it’s hard to say, based on Mr. Trump’s generally cryptic policy positions and the practical barriers to implementing the few he is clear on.
I think that whichever lying hack gets elected, we will see a continuing test of how far American people and institutions are willing to accept an increasingly imperial presidency.
iris lilies
10-23-16, 12:04pm
actually, I think he walked back on the 11 million and wants to first concentrate on the 2 million"bad hombres". I find a great deal of difficulty finding the exact message.
...s.
ok, my error. i lost track of how many badnicks from south of the border are around.
Teacher Terry
10-23-16, 3:50pm
Trump is falling farther behind in the polls with every passing day. I am voting of course but am no longer worried about who will win.
I find it somewhat amazing that Clinton is only leading Trump by five points nationally. He's done everything short of strangling puppies in a childrens' cancer ward, and he's still only polling 44 to 49?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html
Ultralight
10-25-16, 8:39am
The Trumpkins will likely not being going away after the election.
The Trumpkins will likely not being going away after the election.
I think it goes beyond Trumpism. I see a sort of neopopulist current on both the Left and Right continuing into the future.
We can probably look forward to friction between a Clinton administration and the Warren/Sanders true believers for the next four years. It's also difficult to see how she will be able to address the real or imagined grievances of the identity politics wing of the party.
There is not much support for Warren among the Bernie people at this point. She burned that bridge.
There is not much support for Warren among the Bernie people at this point. She burned that bridge.
Whatever their internecine quarrels may be, I still think they will be dissatisfied with Clinton's level of regulation and redistribution.
JaneV2.0
10-25-16, 10:53am
And then there's the pious obstructionists on the Right, with their stubborn refusal to do their jobs. I don't envy Ms. Clinton her soon-to-be job--not one bit.
Ultralight
10-25-16, 10:56am
I think obstructing is doing their job. I'd want the liberals to obstruct if the shoe was on the other foot!
And then there's the pious obstructionists on the Right, with their stubborn refusal to do their jobs. I don't envy Ms. Clinton her soon-to-be job--not one bit.
If you believe someone is leading the country down the wrong path or exercising extra-constitutional privilege, isn't it your duty to obstruct?
Is wasn't too long ago we were being told that dissent is patriotic.
JaneV2.0
10-26-16, 10:48am
What is noble about refusing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee?
When President Obama was elected, Republicans vowed to stonewall him at every turn. As far as I know, this was unprecedented. According to PBS/Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/ :
On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.
What is noble about refusing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee?
When President Obama was elected, Republicans vowed to stonewall him at every turn. As far as I know, this was unprecedented. According to PBS/Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/ :
On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.
I don't think there's anything noble about refusing to hold hearings on Judge Garland, whatever point they're trying to make eludes me unless it is considered payback for the deplorable way Judge Bork and Judge Thomas were treated during their confirmation hearings.
As for the PBS article, at that time the Democrats controlled 2 of the three branches of government. Fighting the executive branch on everything was most likely a strategy meant to show token opposition since the Republicans did not have enough votes to stop anything the President or the Democrats in Congress desired. See Obamacare as an example, it passed both houses of Congress without need of Republican support.
I've always been mystified as to why the Democrats didn't push through more of their agenda during their 2 year reign as an unstoppable force.
I don't think there's anything noble about refusing to hold hearings on Judge Garland, whatever point they're trying to make eludes me unless it is considered payback for the deplorable way Judge Bork and Judge Thomas were treated during their confirmation hearings.
As for the PBS article, at that time the Democrats controlled 2 of the three branches of government. Fighting the executive branch on everything was most likely a strategy meant to show token opposition since the Republicans did not have enough votes to stop anything the President or the Democrats in Congress desired. See Obamacare as an example, it passed both houses of Congress without need of Republican support.
I've always been mystified as to why the Democrats didn't push through more of their agenda during their 2 year reign as an unstoppable force.
I remember the President wagging his finger and saying “Elections have consequence.” Then came the great shellacking of 2010 to prove him right.
I've always been mystified as to why the Democrats didn't push through more of their agenda during their 2 year reign as an unstoppable force.
One could say the same about the Republicans 2001-2007. I expect the answer is the spoken agenda of either party does not match the unspoken ones.
In a news blurb today they said the GOP may be in a hurry to approve Garland to avoid a younger more liberal Hillary nominee after the elections.
I've always been mystified as to why the Democrats didn't push through more of their agenda during their 2 year reign as an unstoppable force.
I think the blue dogmdemocrats had a large part in causing that.
In a news blurb today they said the GOP may be in a hurry to approve Garland to avoid a younger more liberal Hillary nominee after the elections.
Depending on the election results I'd like to seemobama withdraw his nomination. He could make a grand statement that the new president should get tomselect the nominee now that the people have sopoken, throwing it all right back in the republicans faces.
Depending on the election results I'd like to seemobama withdraw his nomination. He could make a grand statement that the new president should get tomselect the nominee now that the people have sopoken, throwing it all right back in the republicans faces.
The whole business is so lame that that might be a hilarious response.
I still think he should have pushed more on this.
JaneV2.0
10-26-16, 10:58pm
The whole business is so lame that that might be a hilarious response.
I still think he should have pushed more on this.
To what end? He's done his part, nominating a well-respected moderate. The opposition has repeatedly refused to take a vote, citing patently specious "concerns." This kind of thing will go on as long as the current crop of Republicans are in power. It's pure vindictiveness, nothing more.
To what end?
Having a fully-functioning Supreme Court.
JaneV2.0
10-27-16, 12:01am
Yeah. I bet the opposition would just love watching President Obama grovel. He nominated Garland, and the Republicans made their intentions clear. Repeatedly.
Yeah. I bet the opposition would just love watching President Obama grovel. He nominated Garland, and the Republicans made their intentions clear. Repeatedly.
I think he could have made great progress without any groveling at all. He's such a good speaker that he could have had a field day shaming and embarrassing the Republicans even more than they already were managing to do on their own. And, being in his second term, he could have also rolled up his sleeves and played hardball, if that's the way they wanted to play...
flowerseverywhere
10-27-16, 6:56am
If you believe someone is leading the country down the wrong path or exercising extra-constitutional privilege, isn't it your duty to obstruct?
no, which is why congressional approval rating has been 11 or 13%. Your job is not to push your own religious and personal beliefs, or what Grover Norquist wants, but to take the good of what the other side is saying, and try to compromise with the good of what your side is saying. Our country "Hires" elected officials to run the country, not to better themselves and advance their own agenda. We would have way fewer problems if we had more compromisers. Unfortunately the good guys get swept up in all this posturing.
as I read further on this thread. I see that instead of placing the Supreme Court nominee refusal to have hearings squarely on the shoulders of the obstructionists, opinion is now Obama should have pushed harder. He probably should have, maybe has behind closed doors and we don't know about it. he found a good guy and the blame rests clearly on the obstructionists who are being paid to do a job and failed to do it.
Our country "Hires" elected officials to run the country, not to better themselves and advance their own agenda.
So, the 'checks & balances' built into the governmental framework to prevent any one branch attaining absolute power is a bad thing?
no, which is why congressional approval rating has been 11 or 13%. Your job is not to push your own religious and personal beliefs, or what Grover Norquist wants, but to take the good of what the other side is saying, and try to compromise with the good of what your side is saying. Our country "Hires" elected officials to run the country, not to better themselves and advance their own agenda. We would have way fewer problems if we had more compromisers. Unfortunately the good guys get swept up in all this posturing.
as I read further on this thread. I see that instead of placing the Supreme Court nominee refusal to have hearings squarely on the shoulders of the obstructionists, opinion is now Obama should have pushed harder. He probably should have, maybe has behind closed doors and we don't know about it. he found a good guy and the blame rests clearly on the obstructionists who are being paid to do a job and failed to do it.
If House members get a performance review every two years by the voters and are consistently returned to office, they must be “doing their job” to the satisfaction of their employers.
Their job is to represent their constituents, not to advance the agenda of the President.
I don't think there's anything noble about refusing to hold hearings on Judge Garland, whatever point they're trying to make eludes me unless it is considered payback for the deplorable way Judge Bork and Judge Thomas were treated during their confirmation hearings.
As for the PBS article, at that time the Democrats controlled 2 of the three branches of government. Fighting the executive branch on everything was most likely a strategy meant to show token opposition since the Republicans did not have enough votes to stop anything the President or the Democrats in Congress desired. See Obamacare as an example, it passed both houses of Congress without need of Republican support.
I've always been mystified as to why the Democrats didn't push through more of their agenda during their 2 year reign as an unstoppable force.
"2 year reign as an unstoppable force"?? Can we please put this latest right-wing meme to bed. Here's the facts:
Starting Jan 2009 to Jan 2011: House of Representatives 257 Dems, 178 Republicans. House does not have the same filibuster rule the Senate uses, so a majority vote is all that is needed to pass legislation. But, the Senate approval is needed for it to become law.
The Senate operates with a 60-vote requirement for filibuster. There are 100 Senate seats, so 60 votes are needed to bring legislation to the floor for a vote. As of Jan 20 2009, Dems = 57 seats, Independents (Sanders and Lieberman caucusing with Dems) = 2 which equals 59. Republicans = 41. Ted Kennedy had a seizure during Obama's inaugural lunch and never returned to vote in the Senate. Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7 2009.
In 2009 not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus. 3 Republicans in the Senate voted so it passed.
In April 2009 Republican Sen. Arlen Spector became a Democrat. Kennedy died Aug 25 2009, never having returned. Kennedy's seat was filled temporarily 9/24/2009 and gave the Senate Dems 60 seats from that date until Feb 4 2010 when Scott Brown, a Republican, won Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
So, did Obama "have control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 months and during that time Obamacare passed.
"2 year reign as an unstoppable force"?? Can we please put this latest right-wing meme to bed. Here's the facts:
I don't know that it's a right-wing meme, more like a poor use of a word by not taking into account the Senate's cloture rules.
Of course, during that four month period they could have reversed their party's 1975 rules change which changed the rules of cloture from a simple majority such as the House uses to a 3/5ths majority. They later did in the case of certain executive and judicial nominees after discovering that their rules could be used to the opposing party's advantage.
Live and learn huh?
"2 year reign as an unstoppable force"?? Can we please put this latest right-wing meme to bed. Here's the facts:
Starting Jan 2009 to Jan 2011: House of Representatives 257 Dems, 178 Republicans. House does not have the same filibuster rule the Senate uses, so a majority vote is all that is needed to pass legislation. But, the Senate approval is needed for it to become law.
The Senate operates with a 60-vote requirement for filibuster. There are 100 Senate seats, so 60 votes are needed to bring legislation to the floor for a vote. As of Jan 20 2009, Dems = 57 seats, Independents (Sanders and Lieberman caucusing with Dems) = 2 which equals 59. Republicans = 41. Ted Kennedy had a seizure during Obama's inaugural lunch and never returned to vote in the Senate. Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7 2009.
In 2009 not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus. 3 Republicans in the Senate voted so it passed.
In April 2009 Republican Sen. Arlen Spector became a Democrat. Kennedy died Aug 25 2009, never having returned. Kennedy's seat was filled temporarily 9/24/2009 and gave the Senate Dems 60 seats from that date until Feb 4 2010 when Scott Brown, a Republican, won Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
So, did Obama "have control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 months and during that time Obamacare passed.
Thank you for spelling that out; I was remembering maybe six months without tantrums and threats of filibuster over every little thing--certainly not two years.
flowerseverywhere
10-27-16, 11:31am
So, the 'checks & balances' built into the governmental framework to prevent any one branch attaining absolute power is a bad thing?
no it's a great thing. It's thinking it's all about you.
no it's a great thing. It's thinking it's all about you.
Or the people who voted for you?
flowerseverywhere
10-28-16, 3:45pm
Or the people who voted for you?
no, it is making critical thinking in each individual situation trying to do the best for the majority. A recent horrible thing happened in Puerto Rico. They have very little access to birth control and Zika is a big problem. The waters got muddied by fighting over who would get any funds for birth control.
Some who are anti abortion did not want any money for birth control to go to the planned parenthood there because some of the clinics provide abortion. The poorest women use these clinics. Federal funds cannot be used for abortion anyway, but that was a line drawn. The bill was defeated. No more birth control money went there to anyone.
In in the meantime more Zika babies have been born. PBS had a recent story where some of these poor babies, are not only delayed, but some cry in pain 24 hours a day. Some cannot eat normally so have feeding tubes. Why Can't politicians put their own beliefs beside to save babies from this devastating disease? At least until they figure it out.
It it is this lack of compromise that leads to gridlock, and sometimes the outcome can be pure evil. In the meantime these poor babies suffer. Who would allow that to happen?
Ultralight
10-28-16, 9:01pm
no, it is making critical thinking in each individual situation trying to do the best for the majority. A recent horrible thing happened in Puerto Rico. They have very little access to birth control and Zika is a big problem. The waters got muddied by fighting over who would get any funds for birth control.
Some who are anti abortion did not want any money for birth control to go to the planned parenthood there because some of the clinics provide abortion. The poorest women use these clinics. Federal funds cannot be used for abortion anyway, but that was a line drawn. The bill was defeated. No more birth control money went there to anyone.
In in the meantime more Zika babies have been born. PBS had a recent story where some of these poor babies, are not only delayed, but some cry in pain 24 hours a day. Some cannot eat normally so have feeding tubes. Why Can't politicians put their own beliefs beside to save babies from this devastating disease? At least until they figure it out.
It it is this lack of compromise that leads to gridlock, and sometimes the outcome can be pure evil. In the meantime these poor babies suffer. Who would allow that to happen?
The right-wingers and very religious would simply say that all life is a miracle to behold and be grateful for, even if it is being born with horrible birth defects, having to live on a feeding tube, and crying in pain all the time. A miracle and god's will.
The right-wingers and very religious would simply say that all life is a miracle to behold and be grateful for, even if it is being born with horrible birth defects, having to live on a feeding tube, and crying in pain all the time. A miracle and god's will.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. At least in my case, it's not so much the simple-minded taboo you're illustrating as arrogating the choice of which lives are worthy of continuing to the political system. Where you see overweening arrogance, I see something more humble.
no, it is making critical thinking in each individual situation trying to do the best for the majority.
I think reasonable elected officials and the people who elect them can disagree on "what's best for the majority".
Ultimately, if Republican legislators who showed the level of support (or subservience) to the President's agenda you're looking for would fail to be re-elected. It would work the same if the situation were reversed. If we have a divided government, it's because we have a divided population. It's a messy, perhaps inefficient system, but it's a good way to keep the authoritarian strain in human nature in check.
[QUOTE=LDAHL;256030] At least in my case, it's not so much the simple-minded taboo you're illustrating as arrogating the choice of which lives are worthy of continuing to the political system. /QUOTE]
+1000
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.