[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-28, 14:44, said:

Since the first 100 days have elapsed I will, indeed, review the executive orders. And I believe your anti-Trump bias also has you blinded.

The only functional impact from the eos has been on ICE - there has been an increase in roundups of illegal immigrants - erratic but there is a difference.

As far as bias, I look at it this way - I don't have to be biased to know that Trump is a promoter who has no real understanding of world politics, basically a buffoon who is fairly harmless unless placed into a position of power, just as I know I don't need to listen to the pitch from the guy calling on the phone and saying he represents a Sudan prince who needs help with his money.

All you have to do is watch and listen to Trump or read the transcripts of his interviews. He has no idea what he is talking about.

This is the part of Trump support that so baffles me - how seemingly smart people continue to fall for his pitch, which, if it came over the phone from an 800 number in Orlando, they would immediately recognize as a scam. It is that obvious that this guy has nothing - nada - no ideas, no understanding of history, of the world, nothing but rehashed radio talk show opinions and conspiracy theories.

It takes no bias either way to see that.

[blackshoe]

Shortly after Bill Clinton's first election to the White House, I expressed to my father the opinion that Mr. Clinton was not going to be a good President. His comment was "Give him a year, see what he does." One hundred days isn't enough.

[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-28, 19:15, said:

Shortly after Bill Clinton's first election to the White House, I expressed to my father the opinion that Mr. Clinton was not going to be a good President. His comment was "Give him a year, see what he does." One hundred days isn't enough.

Just what, exactly, makes a "good" president? No (errr fewer...) scandals? Economic prosperity? Peace? Security? Morality? Doing what "we" like?

[bobsolow]

From a New Yorker intro to stories about Trump's first 100 days including this story by David Remnick:

Quote

For those whose task it has been to report on, probe, or just make sense of the most unorthodox Presidency in American history, it has been a manic hundred days. The primary daily chroniclers of the Trump Administration for The New Yorker, John Cassidy, Amy Davidson, and Ryan Lizza, have collectively written more than a hundred columns during that span. Read together, they are a diary of this Administration’s alarming edicts, stumbling policy reversals, disquieting personnel decisions, frequent tantrums, and bumbling incompetence. It is an exhausting and terrifying litany.

The riddle is whether the Trump Administration will, in the end, lurch toward something resembling the ordinary—or if it will persist as the reality-show Presidency. Shock-value nonsense is survivable; the danger is that the drama will turn darker. There is also the question of what will become of the resistance to this Presidency, which The New Yorker has endeavored to narrate as well. Marches, with their throngs, are thrilling, but the prospects for channelling that energy into votes and, ultimately, a lasting movement feel just as uncertain as the prognosis for this Administration.

Here is a look back at some of the stories from The New Yorker that charted this tumultuous passage we have travelled together since the Inauguration.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-28, 19:15, said:

Shortly after Bill Clinton's first election to the White House, I expressed to my father the opinion that Mr. Clinton was not going to be a good President. His comment was "Give him a year, see what he does." One hundred days isn't enough.

No, 100 days is not enough if we were speaking of normal times; but 100 days is more than enough time to understand that this guy is void of competency, that all he knows is bombast and exaggeration. That takes about 2 minutes of listening to his blather.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-28, 13:17, said:

How condescending! Apparently you haven't really tried to understand the impact of Trump's executive orders at all. He is already moving the ship of state in a different direction from the last couple of decades. And I would very much like to review your sources for what you have learned about the staging of Trump's signing ceremonies. Please provide some links.

Well, there was the one where he forgot to sign the EO.

https://www.indy100....husiasm-7661491

[Winstonm]

This sounds like it is straight from the Vladimir Putin playbook:

Quote

President Donald Trump on Friday proclaimed May 1 as 'Loyalty Day' as a way to "recognize and reaffirm our allegiance to the principles" upon which America was built and express pride in those ideals, according to a release of the proclamation from the White House.

Quote

By Roland Oliphant, Moscow10:44AM BST 01 May 2015
It could be a scene from the heyday of the Soviet Union.
Over 100,000 Russians marched through Red Square this morning, waving the banners of the ruling party and proclaiming the supremacy of workers' rights.
But the march was led not by Leonid Brezhnev, but Sergei Sobyanin – the technocratic Kremlin-backed mayor of Moscow – and the flags were not Communist red, but the blue of United Russia, Vladimir Putin's ruling party.

What a remarkable coincidence that May 1st was chosen as the date.

[kenberg]

This is not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it is a realization.

There have been articles about the Trump tax plan and articles about how it might affect various people including me. I realized today that have read none of this and, upon reflection, see no reason why I should. Anything he says has a shelf life of maybe a week. Posters, Trump supporters, here have said that they do not care what Trump says, only what he does. . But this is where that leads. Assad apparently took Trump at his word that what happens in Syria is up to Syrians. Then the Tomahawks came. Oh well.

I do not think that it will be good for anyone, including Trump, if world leaders decide that whatever Trump says is completely irrelevant to his actual intentions, but that's where I am now and I expect I am not alone.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2017-April-29, 12:41, said:

This is not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it is a realization.

There have been articles about the Trump tax plan and articles about how it might affect various people including me. I realized today that have read none of this and, upon reflection, see no reason why I should. at it will be good for anyone, including Trump, if world leaders decide that whatever Trump says is completely irrelevant to his actual intentions, but that's where I am now and I expect I am not alone.

There isn't even anything to read. There's no "plan", they put out a 1-page, broad outline of his goals -- he could have posted the entire thing as a few tweets (it's surprising he didn't). Even ignoring Trump's flightiness, there's absolutely no way it will survive the legislative process without major changes.

It's the tax reform equivalent of "We're going to build a wall, and it will be great".

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2017-April-29, 14:41, said:

There isn't even anything to read. There's no "plan", they put out a 1-page, broad outline of his goals -- he could have posted the entire thing as a few tweets (it's surprising he didn't). Even ignoring Trump's flightiness, there's absolutely no way it will survive the legislative process without major changes.

It's the tax reform equivalent of "We're going to build a wall, and it will be great".

More like, don't worry about the guy behind that curtain, look over here at this great tax plan!

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-29, 15:24, said:

More like, don't worry about the guy behind that curtain, look over here at this great tax plan!

So here is Trump's take on his first 100 days: http://www.zerohedge...-first-100-days

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-29, 17:40, said:

So here is Trump's take on his first 100 days: http://www.zerohedge...-first-100-days

Remarkable, it's quite different from a detailed comparison of his actual achievements with the promises he made for his first 100 days in the campaign.
http://www.vox.com/a...accomplishments

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-April-29, 17:56, said:

Remarkable, it's quite different from a detailed comparison of his actual achievements with the promises he made for his first 100 days in the campaign.
http://www.vox.com/a...accomplishments

Yes, Trump noticeably overpromised on what he could accomplish in the 1st 100 days. In particular, any of those promises that depend on cooperation from Congress are ephemeral at best. I have often been involved in projects where senior management promised far more that the staff could deliver. But Trump does seem determined to continue pursuing the implementation of his promises. Perhaps he can accomplish more in the 4 years of his presidency.

But certainly Trump has changed the tenor and direction of the Federal Government.

[jogs]

Look at these five groups.

* demographics of US population
* demographics of us electorate
* demographics of the middle 60%
* progressive left
* elitist progressive left

Trump is the first politician in the post war period to campaign for the middle 60%. The elitist progressive left cries racists.
The elitist progressive left is the whitest group. The middle 60% is nearly 50% non-white. The democrats have not helped minorities in 60 years. When minorities wake up to this, they will stop voting for democrats.
Even if Trump fails to build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare, and is unable to simplify the tax code, Trump is still better than Hillary for minorities. Hillary had promised nothing to help working class minorities.

With no wall, illegal immigrant crossings of the border has been reduced.
With no new tax plan, small businesses are more optimistic.

The democrats believe in treating everyone worldwide equally. Trump believes the US govt should favor US citizens over non citizens. I agree with Trump and will vote for Trump again.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-April-30, 07:35, said:

Look at these five groups.

* demographics of US population
* demographics of us electorate
* demographics of the middle 60%
* progressive left
* elitist progressive left

Trump is the first politician in the post war period to campaign for the middle 60%. The elitist progressive left cries racists.
The elitist progressive left is the whitest group. The middle 60% is nearly 50% non-white. The democrats have not helped minorities in 60 years. When minorities wake up to this, they will stop voting for democrats.
Even if Trump fails to build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare, and is unable to simplify the tax code, Trump is still better than Hillary for minorities. Hillary had promised nothing to help working class minorities.

With no wall, illegal immigrant crossings of the border has been reduced.
With no new tax plan, small businesses are more optimistic.

The democrats believe in treating everyone worldwide equally. Trump believes the US govt should favor US citizens over non citizens. I agree with Trump and will vote for Trump again.

I would be interested in the figures you provided but you didn't leave a source. And no valid source that I know of has categories that include: progressive left and elitist progressive left.

This seems to be the heart of your support:

Quote

The democrats believe in treating everyone worldwide equally. Trump believes the US govt should favor US citizens over non citizens. I agree with Trump and will vote for Trump again.

I think you are agreeing to be swindled by a guy who cares nothing about anything but himself. But even if you are correct, the bigger problem is that we cannot go back in time and relive an era when coal was king, Detroit made all the cars, and jobs were not automated.

You should have read this from The New Yorker article linked to above:

Quote

Trump has never gone out of his way to conceal the essence of his relationship to the truth. In 1980, when he was about to announce plans to build Trump Tower, a 58-story edifice on Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, he coached his architect before meeting with a group of reporters. ‘Give them the old Trump bullshit. Tell them it’s going to be a million square feet, 68 stories.’ This is the brand Trump has created for himself – that of an unprincipled, cocky, value-free con who’ll insult, stiff, or betray anyone to achieve his purposes. But what was once a parochial amusement is now a national and global peril.

[Winstonm]

Now that he's walked out on a question he didn't like, the only real question I have any more is why anyone in the media is showing Trump any deference at all.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-01, 16:31, said:

Now that he's walked out on a question he didn't like, the only real question I have any more is why anyone in the media is showing Trump any deference at all.

I wasn't aware that they were to begin with.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-01, 18:13, said:

I wasn't aware that they were to begin with.

Then you haven't watched. He deserves zero - he has received some.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-01, 18:47, said:

Then you haven't watched. He deserves zero - he has received some.

I will stand by my comment. Please cite some examples. And I cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. You said "some". Cite me one.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-01, 20:32, said:

I will stand by my comment. Please cite some examples. And I cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. You said "some". Cite me one.

This, from Politico, shows deference for a Trump lie:

Quote

But in early March, Trump wrote on Twitter that Obama had illegally ordered surveillance of Trump Tower in the days and weeks leading up to last year’s election, an allegation for which neither the president nor any White House staff member has been able to offer definitive proof. Trump raised the allegation in his interview without prompting, but then appeared unwilling to discuss it further when CBS anchor John Dickerson asked him whether he stood by the accusation.

“I don't stand by anything. I just — you can take it the way you want. I think our side's been proven very strongly. And everybody's talking about it. And frankly, it should be discussed,” Trump said. “That is a very big surveillance of our citizens. I think it's a very big topic. And it's a topic that should be No. 1. And we should find out what the hell is going on.”

When Dickerson pressed Trump for further details, the president replied that “you don’t have to ask me” because “I have my own opinions. You can have your own opinions.” Dickerson followed up that he wanted Trump’s opinion as president, prompting Trump to say “OK, it's enough. Thank you,” and abruptly ended the interview.

This is not a Trump "allegation" rather a Trump fantasy he continues to lie about. My statement lacks deference.