Jump to content

Trump is the man


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Obama governs through executive orders and he's being a tyrant. Trump governs through executive orders and he's being presidential. 

The partisan hackery here would be hilarious if it didn't so clearly signify the downfall of the republic.

Some of them are appropriate in the sense that he's reversing Obama's EOs.  An EO is the only way to do that.  But some of them are exactly the kind of policy-making via EO that the right complained about through Obama's term in office.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

Trump has literally saved this country from eight MORE years of lies and corruption.


Obama's birth certificate, Ted Cruz's father part of JFK assassination, millions of illegal votes, inauguration crowd sizes.  Dude's a pathological liar and you think he saved American from lies and corruption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality check: Many of Trump’s early vows will never actually happen  


No one can accuse Donald Trump of campaigning in poetry. But after just one week in the White House, the new president is bumping up against the hard reality of governing in prose.

Many of the sweeping actions President Trump vowed this week through his executive orders and proclamations are unlikely to happen, either because they are impractical, opposed by Congress and members of his Cabinet, or full of legal holes.

The reality — that yawning gap between what Trump says he will do and what he actually can do — underscores his chaotic start, which includes executive actions drafted by close aides rather than experts and without input from the agencies tasked with implementing them.

On a host of issues, from health care to trade to immigration, Trump began his presidency with executive orders intended to both placate and excite his base by keeping his bold campaign promises — in rhetoricif not immediate, tangible results. And the White House says Trump’s executive actions should be viewed as initial moves to enact his agenda.

“We’re taking the first steps to get it done, with the understanding that some of these things may be a process, but you have to begin the process and that’s what he’s doing — taking bold action and doing everything he can to make sure these things happen,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy White House press secretary. “I have no doubt these things are going to happen.”

But the reality is far more complicated. On immigration, for instance, Trump’s call for a border wall paid for by Mexico first has to be funded by Congress. And the possibility that Mexico would pay for the wall — always a long shot — grew even more remote this week after Mexico’s president on Thursday canceled his planned visit to Washington to meet with Trump, citing disagreement over the wall. The White House said that one possible option would be to pay for the project with a border tax on Mexican imports.

On trade, Trump can withdraw from and renegotiate trade agreements, as he promised during the campaign. But there is no guarantee that he will have willing partners with whom to renegotiate better trade deals, and certainly not necessarily with better terms. And change will hardly be instantaneous: Under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, the president or any other leaders must give six months’ notice of his or her intention to withdraw.

Trump has also promised to order an investigation into his false claims that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in November for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes. But there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim, and although he has the authority to launch a fact-gathering investigation, it unlikely to unearth the massive election fraud he is asserting. 

One national security executive order he is considering would allow the Central Intelligence Agency to reopen “black site” prisons abroad, as well as reconsider the agency’s now-shuttered enhanced interrogation program. But it does not have buy-in from Defense Secretary James Mattis or CIA Director Mike Pompeo, both of whom privately told lawmakers they were not consulted. Many lawmakers in both parties have also expressed strong opposition to the directive. 

The ad hoc nature of Trump’s executive orders — including some finalized at the last minute or prompted by an off-the-cuff conversation Trump had with a friend or business executive — has further undermined their impact. 

Trump, for example, said that only after a discussion with industry leaders this week did he realize that the nation’s pipelines are not necessarily made with U.S. steel. The epiphany scrambled aides to draft an executive order requiring that they be constructed with solely American-made materials. But specifying U.S.-made steel is a violation of the World Trade Organization agreement, except in cases of national security — which this is not. 

“It would certainly be subject to challenge at the WTO,” said Rob Shapiro, a Commerce Department official under President Bill Clinton. Although it could take five years to adjudicate at the WTO, he said, there is also “the possibility of retaliation by whoever does produce them. The truth is that ‘America first’ is contrary to global trade.”

Trump, however, does not seem to realize the limited power of his executive orders and has made public signing ceremonies a trademark of his first week. 

“President Trump needs to go back to civics class because he can direct his employees to do various things, but he cannot repeal a bunch of laws through his executive orders because he needs congressional consent — and the executive orders themselves say that,” said Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland’s law school.

Steinzor, who is also a member of the Center for Progressive Reform, added that the language in many of Trump’s executive orders explicitly acknowledges that they can only be done in accordance with the law. “He can’t just sit there and show people pieces of paper with his overly emphatic signature and say, ‘I have changed the world,’ because that’s not how we do it,” she said. 

Some of Trump’s actions have caught fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill off guard. “I haven’t seen the new action or what’s being proposed,” said Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), as he was peppered this week with questions about Trump’s draft order revisiting interrogation practices.

And although there is broad consensus among Republicans about the need to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act — a process Trump began with an executive order the day he was sworn in — there is far less harmony on exactly when and how to handle the issue. Trade, infrastructure, and tax restructuring have also exposed rifts in the party. 

“Punitive tariffs are not helpful,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a centrist lawmaker. “Trade wars do not end well.”

In many ways Trump is simply experiencing the stark difference between campaigning and governing, a riddle that has bedeviled nearly every incoming president, including Barack Obama.

Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said that although “it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the patience Trump supporters have for him and his agenda,” he wondered if Trump himself may grow frustrated. “He’s going to find that running a business is a lot simpler than running the government,” Newhouse said. 

David Axelrod, a former senior Obama adviser, pointed to Obama’s executive order his first week in office to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, noting that he faced stiff congressional opposition and never completed his pledge.

But Trump, he said, could face an even more difficult challenge, in part because he presented himself — rather than his policies — as the linchpin.

“The appeal he had as a candidate is that people clearly want someone to snap their fingers and just make something happen, and he saw that desire and played to that desire,” Axelrod said. “Now comes the reality and he’s going to be snapping in the dark.”

Axelrod added, “He campaigned as an autocrat and now he’s the president, and the president isn’t an autocrat — and he’s going to find that some of the things he wants to do are difficult.”  

Many Republicans, however, think that Trump’s supporters may give him a generous amount of time and latitude before demanding concrete results. Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, said a goal such as building a wall along theborder with Mexico is largely symbolic.

“It’s symbolic of greater security and greater control,” Ayres said. “If he gets part of a wall built and Congress has to pay for it, the response from his supporters will be, ‘Well, we didn’t get Mexico to pay for it but at least we got the wall.’ ”

And Judd Gregg, a former Republican governor and senator from New Hampshire, said that for Trump supporters, concrete changes may be beside the point, at least initially.

“They’re more interested in the verbal jockeying and the confrontational verbal approach than the results,” he said. “So as long as he’s poking a stick in the eye of the people his constituency feels are a problem, the rest won’t matter.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Remember when Republicans were oh-so-concerned about America's standing in the world under Obama?

Now it's "*** 'em, we're murica".

No, we were laughing at him, and you guys in general because of the bragging and absolute certainty that our standing in the world would skyrocket once that bumpkin W made way for a hipper idiot.

One of the many ways that he (and the left in general) proved that delusion and arrogance were the prevailing characteristics of that administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

No, we were laughing at him, and you guys in general because of the bragging and absolute certainty that our standing in the world would skyrocket once that bumpkin W made way for a hipper idiot.

One of the many ways that he (and the left in general) proved that delusion and arrogance were the prevailing characteristics of that administration.

Was Nero (I mean Obama) playing the fiddle when he left office?  Just wondering because I didn't check.  Yet, it sure would've seemed appropriate is all I'm saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Was Nero (I mean Obama) playing the fiddle when he left office?  Just wondering because I didn't check.  Yet, it sure would've seemed appropriate is all I'm saying.  

Playing the fiddle, giving the Palestinian Authority 220 million dollars on his way out the door.

After eight years of not doing it, who knew he could multitask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Remember when Republicans were oh-so-concerned about America's standing in the world under Obama?

Now it's "*** 'em, we're murica".

I, personally, never said such or have I ever criticized Obama for using executive orders. Republicans are just as hypocritical as anyone. Trump is not a typical Republican.

It touches on another reason I like Trump now. He was getting no love from the Republican party nor did he care to appease them to get it. In fact, he basically won shunning the Republican establishment, they believed, he could not win without. That is great.

Trump was pounded by the media, Hollywood, entertainment cabal. Every news program, late night talk show, television program, singer, actor, or celebrity constantly attacked Trump, trying to bring him down. That, I expected, but even Republicans were bowing to political correctness. Republicans started stepping away from Trump, but Trump simply said I do not need you.

Conclusion, we may have the first President who will do what he thinks is best for this country without worrying if he is upsetting Demorcrats, Republicans, other countries, special interest groups or Aliens landing in New Mexico. 

Trump appears to be truly a man outside the establishment, and he won. I have to respect that. 





Edited by AREA 51
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if a 20% tariff on Mexican imports is the answer, but at least he is trying to do something to address the trade imbalance which is more that can be said about certain previous presidents. 


(CNSNews.com) - The cumulative merchandise trade deficit that the United States has run with Mexico in the 23 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect is nearing $1,000,000,000,000, according to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In the period from January 1994 through November 2016, according to Census Bureau numbers, the United States ran a cumulative merchandise trade deficit with Mexico of $986,532,000,000.

The United States now sends more money to Mexico each year through our bilateral merchandise trade deficit than we spend on our own homeland security through the federal Department of Homeland Security.

In calendar year 2015 alone, the bilateral U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico was $60,662,800,000. That was $18,098,800,000 more than the $42,564,000,000 the United States government spent in fiscal 2015 on the Department of Homeland Security, according to Treasury Department numbers.

In the first eleven months of 2016 (November is the latest month reported), the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico was $58,798,600,000. That 11-month deficit was already $13,603,600,000 more than the $45,195,000,000 that the U.S. government spent on the Department of Homeland Security in all twelve months of fiscal 2016.

In the three years immediately before NAFTA took effect and in the first year after it took effect, the United States ran merchandise trade surpluses—not deficits--with Mexico, according to the Census Bureau.

The House and Senate approved NAFTA in 1993--not as an international treaty that would have required a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate--but under so-called “fast track” authority, which required only simple majorities in the House and Senate. President Bill Clinton signed it in December 1993.

In 1991 ($2,147,600,000),1992 ($5,381,200,000), 1993 ($1,663,300,000) and 1994 ($1,349,800,000), the U.S. ran a cumulative merchandise trade surplus with Mexico of $10,541,900,000.

Then in 1995, one year after NAFTA took effect, the U.S. ran a merchandise trade deficit with Mexico of $15,808,300,000.

In every year since then—in fact, in every month since then--the U.S. has run merchandise trade deficits with Mexico.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Meanwhile, he continues to make factually incorrect assertions on a near daily basis. 

But I guess being wrong isn't totally the same as "lying." Well. Then again...it sort of depends on the speaker, right? 

Factually incorrect > Alternate facts  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...