Trump: Four Weeks In Summary

[LaserSharkDFB]

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.

That's amusing, seeing as how you've consistently lied in our past discussions. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill purely because you hate the nasty loony lefties. You can't point to where the 9th was legally wrong in their decision. You can say they should have accepted the clarification, but as I recall the clarification did not come directly from Trump himself and was not enforceable without amending the EO, which (again) did not happen. If you take the minor procedural hiccup you're so angry about and balance it with the significant harm the ban was causing, I would say that the 9th was absolutely right to uphold the stay.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Yeah, fair point

[Bodakane]

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

And he lacks the sack to admit he's squarely in trump's base.

[NYC17]

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

Hmm, I would have thought that threshold was met when he claimed the 9th Circuit being fanatical as a "generally accepted truth".

[Tijuana]

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 - - -




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

I don't see the point in this exercise. I have no desire to fact check you, or look up any of this stuff. My bottom line is, if you expected a complete novice to come in, against heavy deep state opposition, and get a bunch done right way, that makes one of you.

- - - Updated - - -

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

I mean, I agree that I'm punching down with this guy. But, I don't see why you think anything these kids would make me actually angry or unhappy.

- - - Updated - - -

That's amusing, seeing as how you've consistently lied in our past discussions. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill purely because you hate the nasty loony lefties. You can't point to where the 9th was legally wrong in their decision. You can say they should have accepted the clarification, but as I recall the clarification did not come directly from Trump himself and was not enforceable without amending the EO, which (again) did not happen. If you take the minor procedural hiccup you're so angry about and balance it with the significant harm the ban was causing, I would say that the 9th was absolutely right to uphold the stay.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, fair point

I never argued the merits of the stay. I argued the merits of the decision for an unbriefed judge to presume he knows more about current national security conditions, than the president, who has 14 intelligence agencies to draw information from. The beef I have remains undecided, and the judge will lose. Badly.

- - - Updated - - -

That's amusing, seeing as how you've consistently lied in our past discussions. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill purely because you hate the nasty loony lefties. You can't point to where the 9th was legally wrong in their decision. You can say they should have accepted the clarification, but as I recall the clarification did not come directly from Trump himself and was not enforceable without amending the EO, which (again) did not happen. If you take the minor procedural hiccup you're so angry about and balance it with the significant harm the ban was causing, I would say that the 9th was absolutely right to uphold the stay.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, fair point

One mans lies are another man's obvious and undeniable truths. /shrug

[LaserSharkDFB]

One mans lies are another man's obvious and undeniable truths. /shrug

Yeah. Yeah. You like your alternative facts, all right.

[Tijuana]

Yeah. Yeah. You like your alternative facts, all right.

Since I have never seen you make an even remotely interesting intellectual point, not much is lost to me, if you think I am dishonest, or lacking in any way. You are not the reason I come here to discuss things, quite the contrary.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Since I have never seen you make an even remotely interesting intellectual point, not much is lost to me, if you think I am dishonest, or lacking in any way. You are not the reason I come here to discuss things, quite the contrary.

And I'm not here to entertain you, but more to keep you and people like you from spreading your lying bullshit around. If you would stop lying, I wouldn't respond as much. Seems obvious, really.

[Tijuana]

And I'm not here to entertain you, but more to keep you and people like you from spreading your lying bullshit around. If you would stop lying, I wouldn't respond as much. Seems obvious, really.

Name one lie I have told. I don't need to lie, to dismantle the misguided views of some uneducated kid on the internet.

[Deleted]

Name one lie I have told.

Man...why you take the bait?

Ignore people like him.

[Mormolyce]

1.
Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal

2.
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

3.
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

I guess you can say this failed since a liberal court that get overturned 80% of the time put a TRO on it. But theres a new one soon.

4.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

5. The dakota access piepline

6. Keystone XL pipeline

7. Bill to rebuild military

That's a lot that being accomplished. More than obama.

I love how you couldn't even get to 10 with bullshit.

1) Hasn't accomplished shit yet, score: 0.

2) Specifically?

3) Created chaos in America's airports to implement a travel ban that wouldn't have stopped a single death in a US terrorist attack in the past. This bill was shut down by the courts and forced him to revise it - the revised version will likely also encounter trenchant resistance in the court system. Also, ISIS celebrated it as a recruiting tool. Score: -1.

4) He issued an EO that to my knowledge has yet to be put into practice. It only reduces regulation if a new regulation is put in place, and of course the weasel here is that it doesn't specify WHICH regulation to remove, so it could be entirely spurious. Score: 0.

5) Would've happened anyway. Score: 0.

6) You can have this one, I guess? If it really matters to you? Score: 1.

7) Really ran out of steam there, huh?

[Tijuana]

Man...why you take the bait?

Ignore people like him.

To give that clown something to do for a few hours. When he is done, I will make no acknowledgement of his efforts.

[Acidbaron]

Hmm, I would have thought that threshold was met when he claimed the 9th Circuit being fanatical as a "generally accepted truth".

Didn't even get to that, i only managed to pick that up since it was at the top. Most of it is as always just an angry rant

[Deleted]

I love how you couldn't even get to 10 with bullshit.

1.
Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal

1) Hasn't accomplished shit yet, score: 0.

I will use just your first point to show how clueless you really are.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/...201716039.html

"The IRS announced that it will not reject tax returns just because a taxpayer has not indicated on the return whether the taxpayer had health insurance, was exempt, or made a shared-responsibility payment under Sec. 5000A. The IRS disclosed the change on its webpage, ACA Information Center for Tax Professionals, in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order mandating that federal agencies reduce the burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148, on taxpayers. - See more at: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/feb/health-care-mandate-change-for-tax-returns-201716039.html#sthash.zMtrqAmy.dpuf"

[Mormolyce]

I will use just your first point to show how clueless you really are.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/...201716039.html

"The IRS announced that it will not reject tax returns just because a taxpayer has not indicated on the return whether the taxpayer had health insurance, was exempt, or made a shared-responsibility payment under Sec. 5000A. The IRS disclosed the change on its webpage, ACA Information Center for Tax Professionals, in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order mandating that federal agencies reduce the burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148, on taxpayers. - See more at: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/feb/health-care-mandate-change-for-tax-returns-201716039.html#sthash.zMtrqAmy.dpuf"

So you want Trump to take credit for a bill to reduce the impact of a change he's causing.

That hasn't even happened yet.

No points.

[Deleted]

So you want Trump to take credit for a bill to reduce the impact of a change he's causing.

That hasn't even happened yet.

No points.

WTF? What "bill"?

The IRS can no longer reject tax returns just because a taxpayer has not indicated on the return whether the taxpayer had health insurance, was exempt, or made a shared-responsibility payment under Sec. 5000A. This is due to the TRUMP EO!!!

In other words - your return will NOT be refused to if you DO NOT COMPLY WITH ACA.

What the fuck point of that do you NOT GET?

[LaserSharkDFB]

To give that clown something to do for a few hours. When he is done, I will make no acknowledgement of his efforts.

Oh, wow, thanks. I was going to start searching - between your consistent use of a broad brush, your massive biases, and your claim in this thread about media lies, I was pretty sure I could find a good quote - but now that you've admitted you had no interest in having an honest discussion to begin with, I will accept your concession and go on with my day. Appreciate it.

[Tijuana]

Oh, wow, thanks. I was going to start searching - between your consistent use of a broad brush, your massive biases, and your claim in this thread about media lies, I was pretty sure I could find a good quote - but now that you've admitted you had no interest in having an honest discussion to begin with, I will accept your concession and go on with my day. Appreciate it.

By all means, go on with your day. Go on with your week. Go on with your whole life.

[Mormolyce]

WTF? What "bill"?

The IRS can no longer reject tax returns just because a taxpayer has not indicated on the return whether the taxpayer had health insurance, was exempt, or made a shared-responsibility payment under Sec. 5000A. This is due to the TRUMP EO!!!

In other words - your return will NOT be refused to if you DO NOT COMPLY WITH ACA.

What the fuck point of that do you NOT GET?

Oh, perhaps the guy who posted that should've used the English language to phrase his sentence correctly. I thought he was referring to easing the pending repeal. This is why we invented punctuation.

In that case, this is just a component of the eventual repeal, so I can't give out points for work started and not completed. The actual repeal and replacement of the ACA is of course, under a massive cloud right now.

[Zan15]

I don't see the point in this exercise. I have no desire to fact check you, or look up any of this stuff. My bottom line is, if you expected a complete novice to come in, against heavy deep state opposition, and get a bunch done right way, that makes one of you.

- - - Updated - - -

lol his party has full control.

maybe if he was not prepared and a novice, he should not be running the most powerful, complex position in the world?

just maybe? Now you are just making excuses for his incompetence....and showing proof on how much he freaking lied during the campaign on his grand plans he had ready for the country. He's fucking winging it now and those poor people who thought they were going to see their jobs come back are the ones whom will suffer.

- - - Updated - - -

I will use just your first point to show how clueless you really are.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/...201716039.html

"The IRS announced that it will not reject tax returns just because a taxpayer has not indicated on the return whether the taxpayer had health insurance, was exempt, or made a shared-responsibility payment under Sec. 5000A. The IRS disclosed the change on its webpage, ACA Information Center for Tax Professionals, in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order mandating that federal agencies reduce the burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148, on taxpayers. - See more at: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/feb/health-care-mandate-change-for-tax-returns-201716039.html#sthash.zMtrqAmy.dpuf"

the funny part is

"they will not reject"

but since its tax law, the individual is still legally liable and they could be on the hook for penalties and interest if anything changes going forward since the president can't change this law without congressional approval first.

[Breccia]

Dude, you are espousing a crayon level of understanding here. The example you provide, is for people who have set foot on US soil.

So, like, the travel ban, which is what you were talking about? Because I'm fairly sure that's relevant here. Incidentally, so does the 3-0 decision.

"The Government has not shown that it is likely to
succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’
Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious
nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect
to their religious discrimination claims."

I'm sure they'll appreciate the "crayon level of understanding" comment.