Donald Trump - First 100 Days as POTUS

[WildSimba]

I just wanted to create a topic separate from just him winning and his 100 day plan, to discuss the actual actions he has and will decide to go through with.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/ ... index.html

There's an article that's a breakdown of what he's done so far, and as we get further into the 100 days, I'll continue to link to more articles and sources to give an idea of what he's done.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

Here's an official government site link to detail exactly what Trump plans on doing with these plans, while a little vague still, they give a slightly more broad idea of his actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not gonna lie here, I'm a little bit peeved by a few things he's done, I mean time will truly tell with more of what he does, but so far some of the things he's passed have not gone over well. Some of those include, Restricting Federal Funding to NGO's that provide abortions, hiring freeze of federal employees, ALREADY putting an appeal on the Affordable Care Act, with not a lot of changes to help actually improve things, re-enacted the north Dakota pipeline, in interest of business, over the natives that live there, as well as signing against a few environmental and trade issues.

What do you think of all of this

[Squeely]

While some of the things in his plan are good, others are not. Time will tell whether the good things work as improvements. Hopefully the bad can be rectified by the next president. 2020 can't get here fast enough.

[Azdgari]

He started throwing hand grenades the second he stepped into office, huh?

[Azdgari]

Oh come on! 13 pages for the election, and now that he's in office we can't come up with more than two posts?

[Amur_Tiger]

Canadian here so this is somewhat of an outside perspective.

Trump thusfar has proven to be increasingly easy to manipulate and lead by the Republican party and appears to be going back on everything that doesn't fall in line with the normal republican policy albeit more rude and bombastic.

On the subject of the lack of other commentary I think it goes back to how the media is covering things. The media has been working to fabricate outrage for so long that it's gotten well to the point of exhaustion particularly since the focus tends to be around topics that don't matter all that much. Currently it seems like the most broad-based outrage from the media is about the conversation between a Trump advisor and Russian officials on how they'd expect policy to proceed during the Trump administration.

If you drill down to the specifics it's much ado about nothing with the biggest concrete issue being that they were undermining the last days of the Obama administration. Which, ok, isn't great but not a huge deal especially when the sanctions themselves are aimed at compromising the Trump administration.

Main while if we get past the specifics of what they're fighting over ( The Muslim ban ) the fight between the executive branch and the judiciary is sorta a big deal and a fairly obvious attack on the whole concept of checks and balances. Also the vast majority of the appointees have gone entirely against the campaign promise of 'drain the swamp' . Yet somehow the media is convinced that talking to a Russian official is the biggest issue. The reason isn't too hard to guess, the media doesn't mind having an executive branch meddling with the courts or the establishment remaining in power.

[Squeely]

I do feel like the majority of the media is too sensational. They make Trump out to be some monster when really, he isn't that bad imo. Definitely far from great, though, and certainly too brash and tactless at times. But I don't think he's much to fear.

[Elton John]

The media has been way hyperbolic.

Yeah he's been terrible so far but he's not the next hitler. At worst, most of the damage he does will be undone by someone worthy of office.

[TheLionPrince]

I was planning to wait it out as we approach the first 100 days before I pass judgment on it because I have been proved wrong about Trump before. Because of Azgardi's demand, I'll just say this. His presidency so far is just too inconsistent and uneven to give a proper overall judgment on it just as his campaign was. Trump has some really good days, and when they are good, they are really good, and then, he has his really bad days when he either made a really bad tweet or members in his staff or cabinet did something they shouldn't have done. From Tuesday night to yesterday, the media was praising Trump for his presidential address delivered Congress, and stating he has finally become "presidential". Now, we have Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself after it's discovered he lied and potentially broke the Logan Act about not meeting with a Russian ambassador to the United States while he was a campaign surrogate during his confirmation hearing.

I'm very disheartened to hear some stories I've seen on television last month about Executive Order 13769, especially with travelers with green cards being held in detention. However, the new measure is not technically a Muslim ban since not all mostly Muslim countries are on the list such as Saudi Arabia. It's more a traveling restricting from the seven top hot-spots for Islamic terrorism. Trump was in the wrong for attacking the judiciary since it shows a lack of respect for checks and balances he was swore to protect when he took his oath. Nevertheless, the judiciary should never, on any case, turn to activism and be politically driven.

Letting Michael Flynn resign was probably for the best. He was compromised and also broke the Logan Act.

Neil Gorsuch sounds like an excellent choice to replace the deceased Antonin Scalia.

I don't support the Trump administration's stance on denying climate change and their environmental policy, and honestly find them inconsistent. On February 16, Trump signed a joint resolution order to reverse a rule ordered by the Obama administration aimed at blocking coal-mining operations from dumping waste into nearby waterways. He did this as his promise to remove unnecessary regulations. Yet during his address before Congress, he asked for bipartisanship support to promote clean water and clean air without going into specifics.

Trump seems to have a heavy disregard for national news outlets that's not favorable to him calling them "fake news" at press conferences and in his tweets. However, it's his senior advisor Kellyanne Conway that popularized the term "alternative facts", which does sound rather Orwellian. That said, I do believe the mainstream media is extremely bias against Trump (and polls show this) with CNN stooping to the lowest of lows by running a false Trump story initially reported by Buzzfeed. Nevertheless, it's the job of news outlets to hold this administration accountable, but do it from a non-biased point of view. The president is spreading around so many lies, half-lies/half-truths, and misinformation that I've lost track.

[Azdgari]

[quote="TheLionPrince"]However, the new measure is not technically a Muslim ban since not all mostly Muslim countries are on the list such as Saudi Arabia. It's more a traveling restricting from the seven top hot-spots for Islamic terrorism.[/quote]
The rest of your post had loads of merit (what's new?), but I'm going to zoom in on the travel ban since I suppose I feel strongly about it, and I've been certainly been exposed to lots of evidence to cast doubt on its legitimacy.

I mean... correct me if I'm wrong anywhere, but the seven countries on the ban are acknowledged to have no responsibility for deadly terror in the US since 9/11, while Saudi Arabia has repeatedly been linked to financial, if not more direct support in the 9/11 attacks in addition to being widely understood as a rich and prolific sponsor of terrorism worldwide. All this to say nothing of express expert opinion stating that citizenship is a poor predictor for terrorist activity.

For the curious, understanding the petrodollar agreements may provide some insight into US foreign policy concerning Saudi Arabia and OPEC, in my opinion.

So I have to say I have a difficult time interpreting the ban as currently organized as having any sort of base in policy effectiveness--to say nothing of the fact that falling out of bed or choking on chicken or, perhaps more poignantly, lack of access to proper healthcare kills tens of thousands of times as many Americans every year as does terrorism (~6 deaths per year on average since 2004).

[Amur_Tiger]

I agree with Azdgari on this one, the fact that Saudi Arabia is left off a 'Muslim Ban' is more adding insult to injury then really moving towards being less discriminatory based off religion. As Azdgari points out Saudi Arabia is a prime mover in why there's an association between Muslim and terrorist and what's more the reasons why it's left off the list basically come down to money and the geopolitical chess game the US insists on playing.