Trump: Four Weeks In Summary

[Tijuana]

That Trump stating that the press is the enemy of the people isn't jiving with people in his own administration.

Is that strange to you? Do you think he hired hundreds of thousands of public servants or something? The people that stay from president to president are DC residents. DC is most Liberal city in America. Of course they don't agree with Trump. They will never agree with any Conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhm he was also pretty sure his first executive order was legal, so what now? He is double sure?

Difference between Obama and Trump, Obama is a constitutional lawyer who actually understands basic law where Trump thinks himself as the Emperor who what the 3 branches of a government is.

Obama administration took his time when crafting executive orders so they couldn't be dismissed within a few days after ordering them and even if dimssed by a judge he could go appeal that decision because it was carefully written.

Obama also had a fucking Secretary of Dudes Who Know Laws. Democrats slow walk every nomination, then act surprised when there was expertise lacking.

[Daelak]

Is that strange to you? Do you think he hired hundreds of thousands of public servants or something? The people that stay from president to president are DC residents. DC is most Liberal city in America. Of course they don't agree with Trump. They will never agree with any Conservative.

- - - Updated - - -



Obama also had a fucking Secretary of Dudes Who Know Laws. Democrats slow walk every nomination, then act surprised when there was expertise lacking.

Of course it is strange, since the leaks have been coming from his own transition team and the white house, people that have been hired by his team. The intelligence leaks are from people concerned about the classified intelligence of his administration's ties to Russia.

[Bodakane]

It is an actual fact, that no evidence has been presented to the public that indicates Russia had any influence on how votes were cast, or how they were added up. None. If you think the primary fact that people based their voting decision on, was John Fucking Podesta and other staffers saying mean things about Hillary, then you really need to seek professional help.

I don't know what the fuck is going on with Flynn. But I assure you, we have not heard the last of it. We know these facts, and they don't add up:

1. What he did was not deemed illegal by the FBI.
2. Yet, he lied to Vice President Palpatine about what was said.
3. We know that Trump thinks what he said to the Russians was ok.
4. Yet, Trump fired him for it.

Manafort was fired MONTHS ago, prior to the election. I have no idea what you are on about there. Trump certainly didn't have the resources to personally investigate Manafort on the level you think he should have been. Hell, the FBI is currently investigating him, and they don't even know the facts yet. I have no idea why your standard for candidate Trump is above that of the FBI. I do think there is a there there with Manafort, however.

Releasing tax returns is not required. The public has no ability to understand what those tax returns look like. I do, and I can assure you that even if every letter of the law was followed, the public would freak out of they know how taxes worked for guys like him. We hire a shitty accountant once a year to do ours, or even worse, use software. Trump doesn't have an accountant, he has an accounting department. And everyone in his accounting department, has a law degree. They are not just thinking about his taxes in April. They are part of an year round, every day strategy, that is woven in to every business deal. He likely tries to get every single deduction imaginable, and then fights with the IRS in court for years to settle it all. And there is nothing illegal about that. It's why I have long been a proponent of removing every single tax deduction that exists for a reason other than being poor.

The notion that he was literally trying to pretend attacks happened that didn't, is ridiculous. He clearly mis-spoke about Sweden, and I'm not even sure what your other two are. However, the idea that he was not just being a dumb ass, but was somehow trying to slip by us an attack that didn't happen, is pretty silly man. I mean...come on dude...

I'm not sure on how you measure the "size" of an EO, but clearly there was one that got a lot of attention. I disagree with how sloppy that order was. Calling unconstitutional is a little early in the process. The merits of the case have not even been heard in court yet. The only decision, thus far, is that he lost his attempt to over ride their stay on the order until the order is ruled upon. Try to keep up, guy.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the notion that individuals leaking, is somehow Trumps fault, or equal to the direct decision Hillary made about how to handle her email. I also have long maintained that the email issue was nonsense, and a smart move on her part, to avoid endless FOIA requests from partisan Republicans with smeary intentions.

The travel discussion is pretty loaded obviously. I agree that it's total bullshit that Trump is going to FL every weekend. It's costly, unsafe, and a national security risk. That said, comparing the 4 Obamas who all lived in the White House, to the Trumps, who consist of 6 adults with spouses and additional children, can never be a fair comparison. It's like comparing apples to orangutans. (People keep missing this killer joke. Maybe the 3rd time is the charm.)

I'm not upset at this point because I can recall these same types of stories at the start of every presidency. I mean, if you legit think, that it's a compelling or original idea, to put forth that Trump is in over his head and an amateur, I don't know what to say. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows he has never held office. They voted for him anyway. His supporters expect speed bumps at this point. Do you not see that?

We know for a fact every single us intelligence agency....EVERY SINGLE ONE...says they interfered.

This has fuck all to do with Podesta.

So you're telling me that hiring a someone to run your campaign who is in bed with an enemy of the US is not a black mark against the person that hired him? Bull fucking shit. Obama worked in an office near a guy that set off a bomb 30 years prior and many of the people in your base still to this day think they are cahoots.

Who the fuck said anything about tax returns being released being required. Stop changing the argument. I said it was shady. And it is, especially when we factor in all the other facts.

He didn't misspeak. He thinks things happened that didn't. He has being doing this for years. From the birth certificate bullshit to the 1000's of people celebrating 9-11 to this crap. At some point, it makes you guys look stupid for continuing to make excuses for it.

The size of the EO was in the scope and how much he touted it. Way to be obtuse. Its been overturned 3 times, in court by judges.

Where did I say anyhting about leaking? Jesus wtf is your problem? Using outdated hardware and conducting business in the public dinign room of his hotel are MAJOR security breaches.

Yeah, its completely cool that a good protion of that money goes to Trump businesses. Keep spinning your bullshit.

No POTUS in modern times as failed this much so quickly. There is no comparsion.

[Tijuana]

So, if he changes it - that is, if it's different than the EO that the 9th was involved with - then it would be 8-0. Why are you wasting my time with 'if'? You are wrong. Admit it.

Actually no. He made the clarifications to his staff. In past EOs this was viewed as acceptable. The court is intentionally not including this clarification in their decision, and would not allow arguments to made regarding it. Therefore, if Trump adds that language, they have no complaint to make, since this was the basis of their complaint.

In addition, as I already stated, the actual court case has not yet been litigated. The 3-0 decision was to keep the stay in place until the case is settled. That actual merits of the case are where the 9th Circuit has no chance (if you include the visa exemption). Basically, were it not for the omission of details regarding visa holders, the Washington judge could not even have challenged the case, as he would have no standing due to foreign citizens having no constitutional rights until they reach our borders.

[Deleted]

The size of the EO was in the scope and how much he touted it. Way to be obtuse. Its been overturned 3 times, in court by judges.

...keep spinning your bullshit.

The EO has never been "overturned" (which is a completely wrong usage of that word - only a judgement can be "overturned".)

Regardless, they never "overturned" the EO - they stayed parts of it. The Syrian Refugee part was NEVER TOUCHED!

[ati87]

Is that strange to you? Do you think he hired hundreds of thousands of public servants or something? The people that stay from president to president are DC residents. DC is most Liberal city in America. Of course they don't agree with Trump. They will never agree with any Conservative.

- - - Updated - - -



Obama also had a fucking Secretary of Dudes Who Know Laws. Democrats slow walk every nomination, then act surprised when there was expertise lacking.

First: He had a issues with leaks from day 1 which is when he started campaigning, all of the infighting within the trump campaign team or hell even that he offered all foreign and domestic policies to Kasich.

Second: Obama himself knows laws and he had people that knows how to write laws, nothing stops Trump from hiring qualified people himself.

On the other hand what Trump did was fire allot of people which normal administrations kept for the transition while at the same time not nominating qualified people. Nobody bloody told him to put DeVos, Perry, Carson or Tillerson in his administration (some donors probably did if we want to be honest).

You;re drawing on straws dude, expertise is one thing but their is a difference between lack of knowledge and just being a plain old idiot. Trump had a acting attorney general who told him that his immigration laws was unconstitutional, trump ignored that and called it ''she is against me'' but a bloody week later he was proven wrong and the former AG was proven right.

[Breccia]

In addition, as I already stated, the actual court case has not yet been litigated. The 3-0 decision was to keep the stay in place until the case is settled. That actual merits of the case are where the 9th Circuit has no chance (if you include the visa exemption). Basically, were it not for the omission of details regarding visa holders, the Washington judge could not even have challenged the case, as he would have no standing due to foreign citizens having no constitutional rights until they reach our borders.

This is not entirely true.

The 3-0 decision, which was dozens of pages, mentioned many things, including Trump calling it a Muslim Ban. The visa holders was part of it, but not the only part of it.

Also, the Constitution affects what the government can and can't do. Including that they must use due process. It does not matter who the target it.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It says "person". It does not say "citizen". We can't unreasonably search and seizure the goods of tourists and residents.

[Tijuana]

First: He had a issues with leaks from day 1 which is when he started campaigning, all of the infighting within the trump campaign team or hell even that he offered all foreign and domestic policies to Kasich.

Second: Obama himself knows laws and he had people that knows how to write laws, nothing stops Trump from hiring qualified people himself.

On the other hand what Trump did was fire allot of people which normal administrations kept for the transition while at the same time not nominating qualified people. Nobody bloody told him to put DeVos, Perry, Carson or Tillerson in his administration (some donors probably did if we want to be honest).

You;re drawing on straws dude, expertise is one thing but their is a difference between lack of knowledge and just being a plain old idiot. Trump had a acting attorney general who told him that his immigration laws was unconstitutional, trump ignored that and called it ''she is against me'' but a bloody week later he was proven wrong and the former AG was proven right.

What you say is patently false. It is not standard to keep the political appointments from the prior administration. That has swung both ways in prior administrations. There is no discernible standard for that. In addition, many of them flat refused to stay on, as their personal politics were deemed more important than serving the public.

As I have said many, many times, if your accusation is that Trump is a neophyte in the arenas of politics and public service, NOBODY is arguing against that. It's hardly an original thought. Experience matters, and he has none. Yet, the public knew this, and voted him in anyway. I think non-partisans will show him much more patience in getting started than prior presidents, contrary to the imagined expectations of partisans such as yourself.

Also, you should inform yourself about the travel ban decision. No decision on the merits of the law have even happened yet. The 3-0 vote you saw, was to deny Trumps challenge that the order should remain in place until decided, as opposed to being stuck down until the EO is judged.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not entirely true.

The 3-0 decision, which was dozens of pages, mentioned many things, including Trump calling it a Muslim Ban. The visa holders was part of it, but not the only part of it.

Also, the Constitution affects what the government can and can't do. Including that they must use due process. It does not matter who the target it.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It says "person". It does not say "citizen". We can't unreasonably search and seizure the goods of tourists and residents.

Dude, you are espousing a crayon level of understanding here. The example you provide, is for people who have set foot on US soil. ALL persons who have set foot on US soil, have access to the US Constitution and the courts. NO persons who have not set foot on US soil enjoy these rights. That is the whole fucking point in the distinction about visa holders. His act, due to a lack of clarification, denied rights, in the eyes of the judge, to visa holder and past visitors. When that clarification is made, the house of cards the 9th Circus used, comes tumbling down.

[Glorious Leader]

This is not entirely true.

The 3-0 decision, which was dozens of pages, mentioned many things, including Trump calling it a Muslim Ban. The visa holders was part of it, but not the only part of it.

Also, the Constitution affects what the government can and can't do. Including that they must use due process. It does not matter who the target it.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It says "person". It does not say "citizen". We can't unreasonably search and seizure the goods of tourists and residents.

To play devils advocate "person" also had an incredible different meaning. Trying to discern incredible obscure meaning from centuries old documents whos founders died a long time ago is well almost religious. What does the picard want?

[ati87]

What you say is patently false. It is not standard to keep the political appointments from the prior administration. That has swung both ways in prior administrations. There is no discernible standard for that. In addition, many of them flat refused to stay on, as their personal politics were deemed more important than serving the public.

As I have said many, many times, if your accusation is that Trump is a neophyte in the arenas of politics and public service, NOBODY is arguing against that. It's hardly an original thought. Experience matters, and he has none. Yet, the public knew this, and voted him in anyway. I think non-partisans will show him much more patience in getting started than prior presidents, contrary to the imagined expectations of partisans such as yourself.

Also, you should inform yourself about the travel ban decision. No decision on the merits of the law have even happened yet. The 3-0 vote you saw, was to deny Trumps challenge that the order should remain in place until decided, as opposed to being stuck down until the EO is judged.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/26/sen...icials-resign/

Though it was unclear at the outset whether the resignations were forced or voluntary, a senior State Department official confirmed to CNN that they had been removed from their posts:

“Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong,” one senior State Department official said. “These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house.”

.

Must be fake news right, those people never left

[Zan15]

The level of obsession to type all that out is amazing to me. Jesus Christ, at this point in the past two presidencies, we were still picking the drapes and the china out. Take a deep breath, guy. You are taking every bit of media bait possible. We all knew that Trump was an outsider with no experience. Yet here you come huffing and puffing that he is doing things differently, and amateurishly. Of course he is. The idea that he is in over his head, isn't exactly an original one. Everyone knows this, even him. That said, we didn't elect a King. We have a gigantic government to support him, once the bad apples are indicted for leaks. It will be fine. If Bush and Obama couldn't fuck this up, nobody can.

picking drapes huh? 787 billion of them....You'd figure with the unemployment rate at 42% like Trumpo says it is, he would have a plan already out there.....anyone know where it is? or how about a plan, any plan...anyone got access to any plan he said he HAD.


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which represents a massive $787 billion spending package aimed at stimulating the economy. The act commits significant funding to help workers who have been hurt by the current economic climate.

Specifically, $4 billion has been committed to job training for adults, dislocated workers and youth services. $500 million has been committed for vocational rehabilitation state grants for the construction and rehabilitation of facilities to help disabled persons prepare for gainful employment. $500 million has been earmarked for employment services grants to match unemployed individuals to job openings through state employment services agencies. Funds are targeted to states with the greatest need based on labor force, unemployment and long-term unemployment rates. $120 million has been committed to community service employment for older Americans, which provides subsidized community service jobs to 24,000 low-income older Americans.

The act significantly changes COBRA healthcare coverage for the unemployed. $30.3 billion has been committed to extend health insurance coverage to the unemployed, and the period of COBRA coverage for older and tenured workers has been extended beyond the traditional 18-month period provided under current law. Specifically, workers aged 55 and older and workers who have been working for an employer for ten or more years will be able to retain their COBRA coverage until they become eligible for Medicare or until they secure coverage through a subsequent employer. In addition, the first nine months of COBRA coverage for eligible persons who have lost their jobs on or after September 1, 2008, will receive an employer subsidy of 65 percent of the subsidy rate. This means that the employer will receive a payroll tax credit of 65 percent of the COBRA premium, and the affected worker will have to pay 35 percent of the premium. Consequently, although the federal government will subsidize a substantial portion of the COBRA premium, the affected worker still will be “out of pocket” 35 percent of the COBRA premium.

The act also commits $27 billion to continue the current extended unemployment compensation benefits programs. The current program provides up to 33 weeks of benefits, which will extend current unemployment compensation benefits through December 31, 2009. $9 billion has been committed to increase the current average unemployment insurance benefit amount from $300 per week, which is paid out of state unemployment compensation trust funds, to $325 per week. This program also is extended through December 2009. An unemployment insurance modernization component provides funds to states based upon states meeting specific reforms to increase unemployment insurance coverage for low-wage part-time and other jobless workers.

[Tijuana]

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/26/sen...icials-resign/

.

Must be fake news right, those people never left

What on earth does what you posted have to do with what I said? Can you clarify that?

- - - Updated - - -

picking drapes huh? 787 billion of them....You'd figure with the unemployment rate at 42% like Trumpo says it is, he would have a plan already out there.....anyone know where it is? or how about a plan, any plan...anyone got access to any plan he said he HAD.


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which represents a massive $787 billion spending package aimed at stimulating the economy. The act commits significant funding to help workers who have been hurt by the current economic climate.

Specifically, $4 billion has been committed to job training for adults, dislocated workers and youth services. $500 million has been committed for vocational rehabilitation state grants for the construction and rehabilitation of facilities to help disabled persons prepare for gainful employment. $500 million has been earmarked for employment services grants to match unemployed individuals to job openings through state employment services agencies. Funds are targeted to states with the greatest need based on labor force, unemployment and long-term unemployment rates. $120 million has been committed to community service employment for older Americans, which provides subsidized community service jobs to 24,000 low-income older Americans.

The act significantly changes COBRA healthcare coverage for the unemployed. $30.3 billion has been committed to extend health insurance coverage to the unemployed, and the period of COBRA coverage for older and tenured workers has been extended beyond the traditional 18-month period provided under current law. Specifically, workers aged 55 and older and workers who have been working for an employer for ten or more years will be able to retain their COBRA coverage until they become eligible for Medicare or until they secure coverage through a subsequent employer. In addition, the first nine months of COBRA coverage for eligible persons who have lost their jobs on or after September 1, 2008, will receive an employer subsidy of 65 percent of the subsidy rate. This means that the employer will receive a payroll tax credit of 65 percent of the COBRA premium, and the affected worker will have to pay 35 percent of the premium. Consequently, although the federal government will subsidize a substantial portion of the COBRA premium, the affected worker still will be “out of pocket” 35 percent of the COBRA premium.

The act also commits $27 billion to continue the current extended unemployment compensation benefits programs. The current program provides up to 33 weeks of benefits, which will extend current unemployment compensation benefits through December 31, 2009. $9 billion has been committed to increase the current average unemployment insurance benefit amount from $300 per week, which is paid out of state unemployment compensation trust funds, to $325 per week. This program also is extended through December 2009. An unemployment insurance modernization component provides funds to states based upon states meeting specific reforms to increase unemployment insurance coverage for low-wage part-time and other jobless workers.

If your argument is that CONGRESS had their act together, and were all on the same page, during the early months of a super majority, I won't really refute that. However, the fact that Democrats in Congress were quick to hand out nearly a trillion dollars to donors and constituents, is hardly a relevant to Trump. Signing bills in to law is pretty easy. I'm sure once one comes across Trump's desk, he will sign it straight away.

Also, how did the Porkulus Package work out? Did the economy quickly rebound, and return to pre-bubble standards? I think not.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Actually no. He made the clarifications to his staff. In past EOs this was viewed as acceptable. The court is intentionally not including this clarification in their decision, and would not allow arguments to made regarding it. Therefore, if Trump adds that language, they have no complaint to make, since this was the basis of their complaint.

In addition, as I already stated, the actual court case has not yet been litigated. The 3-0 decision was to keep the stay in place until the case is settled. That actual merits of the case are where the 9th Circuit has no chance (if you include the visa exemption). Basically, were it not for the omission of details regarding visa holders, the Washington judge could not even have challenged the case, as he would have no standing due to foreign citizens having no constitutional rights until they reach our borders.

So, when you strip out all of your ad hominems and well-poisoning about lefty judges and fanatical courts, the only reasonable complaint you have about the 9th Circuit decision is that they didn't accept that the EO was to be amended to exclude those of long-standing residence, even though it was not and, as far as I can tell, has not yet been amended (except in the case of interpreters). And unless they are required to have accepted Trump's claim about the amendment (that hadn't happened yet), their decision is justified.

You sure are making a lot of noise about this. You admit Trump is an amateur, and he clearly screwed this one up. Just accept the loss and wait for him to sign Muslim Ban 2.0. And then he gets to turn it around and show it to everyone like a big boy. He likes that.

[Baneth]

Is that strange to you? Do you think he hired hundreds of thousands of public servants or something? The people that stay from president to president are DC residents. DC is most Liberal city in America. Of course they don't agree with Trump. They will never agree with any Conservative.

- - - Updated - - -



Obama also had a fucking Secretary of Dudes Who Know Laws. Democrats slow walk every nomination, then act surprised when there was expertise lacking.

I'm a liberal. I agree with conservatives on a few issues. At one point, I worked on a staff team to help a Republican get elected into a government position, in the state if illinois.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.

[Tijuana]

So, when you strip out all of your ad hominems and well-poisoning about lefty judges and fanatical courts, the only reasonable complaint you have about the 9th Circuit decision is that they didn't accept that the EO was to be amended to exclude those of long-standing residence, even though it was not and, as far as I can tell, has not yet been amended (except in the case of interpreters). And unless they are required to have accepted Trump's claim about the amendment (that hadn't happened yet), their decision is justified.

You sure are making a lot of noise about this. You admit Trump is an amateur, and he clearly screwed this one up. Just accept the loss and wait for him to sign Muslim Ban 2.0. And then he gets to turn it around and show it to everyone like a big boy. He likes that.

I'm not defending Trump. Fuck him, he can worry about himself. I'm defending your misunderstanding of the facts. I'm sorry if my strong words made it difficult for you to navigate your bias through my positions. I speak strongly; that is just how I am.

It is true that have ZERO respect for any court that seeks to put their own beliefs above the law. That goes both ways. However, activism by the judiciary does in fact seem to be a thing wholly of the left. It just is. My point is not to say that liberal ideology, or conservative ideology is inferior or superior, in regards to this case. I'm saying purely on a basis of law, the president does in fact have these powers. While these powers are subject to judicial review regarding the details, that does not necessarily mean that any judicial challenge will win out in court. That is, unless you are in the 9th Circus, with a decision from a Republican on your desk. It's the partisan hackery seeping in to the courts that bugs me. They have the right to challenge the EO. But, they will lose.

Back to the greater point, regardless of how you feel about THIS ruling, let me ask you something completely general. In situations you personally would deem the judiciary to be over zealous, do you not see that as a HUGE problem for Democracy? We need judges to review laws to ensure they are constitutional. But, if the law is constitutional, but is struck down by the courts, how has the voice of the people not been completely trampled upon? Is it just madness to desire that, legislators make laws, presidents enforce laws, and judges decide who is guilty, and which laws follow the constitution? When judges start wanting to insert themselves in to law making, and in the case above, national security decisions, how have the people's voices not been silenced?

[LaserSharkDFB]

I'm not defending Trump. Fuck him, he can worry about himself. I'm defending your misunderstanding of the facts. I'm sorry if my strong words made it difficult for you to navigate your bias through my positions. I speak strongly; that is just how I am.

It is true that have ZERO respect for any court that seeks to put their own beliefs above the law. That goes both ways. However, activism by the judiciary does in fact seem to be a thing wholly of the left. It just is. My point is not to say that liberal ideology, or conservative ideology is inferior or superior, in regards to this case. I'm saying purely on a basis of law, the president does in fact have these powers. While these powers are subject to judicial review regarding the details, that does not necessarily mean that any judicial challenge will win out in court. That is, unless you are in the 9th Circus, with a decision from a Republican on your desk. It's the partisan hackery seeping in to the courts that bugs me.

You just admitted that the 9th didn't decide on the EO, but the stay. The stay was justified because the EO was badly written; as you say, it made no decision on whether or not Trump had the authority to write the EO at all. You're trying to have it both ways, and your own biases are on full display.

[Vyuvarax]

What you say is patently false. It is not standard to keep the political appointments from the prior administration. That has swung both ways in prior administrations. There is no discernible standard for that. In addition, many of them flat refused to stay on, as their personal politics were deemed more important than serving the public.

As I have said many, many times, if your accusation is that Trump is a neophyte in the arenas of politics and public service, NOBODY is arguing against that. It's hardly an original thought. Experience matters, and he has none. Yet, the public knew this, and voted him in anyway. I think non-partisans will show him much more patience in getting started than prior presidents, contrary to the imagined expectations of partisans such as yourself.

Also, you should inform yourself about the travel ban decision. No decision on the merits of the law have even happened yet. The 3-0 vote you saw, was to deny Trumps challenge that the order should remain in place until decided, as opposed to being stuck down until the EO is judged.

- - - Updated - - -



Dude, you are espousing a crayon level of understanding here. The example you provide, is for people who have set foot on US soil. ALL persons who have set foot on US soil, have access to the US Constitution and the courts. NO persons who have not set foot on US soil enjoy these rights. That is the whole fucking point in the distinction about visa holders. His act, due to a lack of clarification, denied rights, in the eyes of the judge, to visa holder and past visitors. When that clarification is made, the house of cards the 9th Circus used, comes tumbling down.

LOL no, you do not understand federal government. The limitations of the federal government have nothing to do with rights or being on U.S. soil; there are simply limitations on what the U.S. government can DO which has nothing to do with rights. The federal government cannot target individuals based on religion, citizen, on U.S. soil or otherwise.

[Zan15]

Thats still more than any other president has done in the first month, which is how the conversation started.

he could literally do nothing for the next 7 years and 11 months and would be the best president since Reagan once his executive orders have been completed.

Ok now that we listed what Obama did in the first 30 days, just 1 of the things he did that was 1000x more effective then trump, lets talk about Reagan.


- Freed the hostages in Iran, only took him 1 day for that

- Presented a PLAN (you know that thing Trump says he has but no one has seen) an economic program that includes $41.4 billion in budget cuts and a 30% tax cut over 3 years

- introduces the Economic Tax Recovery Act plan.


So he already had two plans introduced to congress and the american people in the first 30 days, hell in the first 90 he got shot and was back at work....not golfing almost every weekend



President Bush First 30 days:

The 2001 tax cut process officially began when President Bush released his tax
relief agenda on February 8, 2001, although its components had been promoted
throughout the campaign and proposed by Congressional Republicans in 2000.11 Cutting
individual income taxes was a major priority, promoted both to stimulate the economy
and to simplify the tax system. The top two brackets would be cut from 39.6 and 36
percent to 33 percent, and the next two from 31 and 28 percent to 25 percent. The lowest
existing bracket would remain at 15 percent, but a new 10 percent bracket would be added for the first $6,000 of income, $12,000 for married couples. The proposal would also increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and make part of it
applicable against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).12 No other significant changes
to the AMT were proposed, despite calls to raise the AMT eligibility threshold.13 The
plan would reduce the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for twoearner
couples. The President also proposed eliminating the estate tax entirely and
making the charitable deduction available to non-itemizers.


So now we have 3 presidents whom did more and introduced actual plans or had plans passed in their first 30 days.

- - - Updated - - -

What on earth does what you posted have to do with what I said? Can you clarify that?

- - - Updated - - -



If your argument is that CONGRESS had their act together, and were all on the same page, during the early months of a super majority, I won't really refute that. However, the fact that Democrats in Congress were quick to hand out nearly a trillion dollars to donors and constituents, is hardly a relevant to Trump. Signing bills in to law is pretty easy. I'm sure once one comes across Trump's desk, he will sign it straight away.

Also, how did the Porkulus Package work out? Did the economy quickly rebound, and return to pre-bubble standards? I think not.

So then you admit you were wrong. like the program or not, he did way more in his first 30 days then Trump did.

[Tijuana]

I'm a liberal. I agree with conservatives on a few issues. At one point, I worked on a staff team to help a Republican get elected into a government position, in the state if illinois.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.

I didn't say that ALL DC residents are flaming communists, just most of them. The brush wasn't broad, it was just right.

I'm pretty independent myself. I jump all around on issues but, my small government beliefs don't leave a lot of room for nonsensical Liberal schemes. But, they do leave room for understanding that when true Capitalism can't occur, such as in health care of police work, it's pointless to allow cronyism to substitute for socialism, and think something was gained.

- - - Updated - - -

You just admitted that the 9th didn't decide on the EO, but the stay. The stay was justified because the EO was badly written; as you say, it made no decision on whether or not Trump had the authority to write the EO at all. You're trying to have it both ways, and your own biases are on full display.

Am I supposed to feel guilty about that or something? The EO was badly written but prior badly written EOs were allowed to stand with administrative clarification. There is no prior standard that all EOs be judged solely on what is written in them. Law is so annoying to discuss; more so with those who keep sloppy facts.

[Acidbaron]

I didn't say that ALL DC residents are flaming communists, just most of them. The brush wasn't broad, it was just right.

If people are still responding to him after such a comment, you only have yourself to blame to keep this both derailed and rather pointless discussion going.

You aren't going to remove a person from his echo chamber, move on, you'll be happier