Trump: The First 100 Days

It’s certainly not a given.

1 Like

And that’s my concern. In addition to the lack of evidence tax cuts automatically unleash economic growth to the point cuts pay for themselves, we’ve been a long period of (1) companies sitting on hoards of cash and (2) borrowing costs at basically zero - if business and industry conditions were ripe to plow money into projects with favorable rates of return or promising R&D, there are no current barriers and companies would alrrady be doing it.

Additional supply side cuts won’t unleash pent up business development that was champing at the bit to get moving but was waiting on more capital that was tied up with payment of taxes (as it was more so with the Kennedy tax cuts). That isn’t the current situation.

Worryingly, Trump wants to nationalize the Kansas experiment.

3 Likes

First of all, you mashed together my judicial activism point. And yes, it is clearly judicial activism because no rational mind could agree with the judge’s explanation on the ruling. I was talking about this case, not the sanctuary city case…The 9th circuit judge upheld the ruling that placed an injunction on the travel ban saying it violated the fifth amendment and also saying it was banning a religion(with no mention of religion in the second draft mind you.) The Shapiro article covered that nicely. That’s not judicial activism when the explanation is that everyone has rights under the U.S. constitution?

As for Obama comment. .Just seeing if you went on record saying the same thing when Big O threatened a massive federal overreach for… transgender bathrooms. Did you?

Using Title 8, I was referring to my, “arrest the mayors” point. I then followed up with “you can pull funding” and posted the article backing it up that you can indeed, pull funding. That’s it. Didn’t even address Trump’s EO…

Now, Orrick’s ruling didn’t find the policy necessarily unconstitutional, he just stated that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face “immediate irreparable harm” if the policy were allowed to be put into place. It probably has nothing to do with him being put on the bench by Obama, right? He didn’t care when Big O threatened cities but I digress. .:thinking:

With that said, the WH needs to be more clear on what actually constitutes as a sanctuary city and be more clear on what they expect out of the states.

As for your title ix spiel, I would love the rationalization behind pulling funding for universities who make people use the bathroom that their sex determines they use…

I actually like this answer. Touche. Still, the judiciary is no place for social justice.

1 Like

Trump first 100 days rating : D

-went back on DACA
-still accepting refugees
-fired missiles at Syria

I don’t know if I specifically addressed the overreach on the transgender rule, but I’ve been pounding the table for years against Obama’s executive overreach. Feel free to do a search. As for the transgender rule, it was overreach - it was unilateral creation of a protected class that wasn’t written or even suggested by Congress. But it’s moot now, since Trump rescinded it.[quote=“norse84, post:7046, topic:223365”]
Didn’t even address Trump’s EO…
[/quote]

Well, you needed to, because that’s what was a being challenged.[quote=“norse84, post:7046, topic:223365”]
Now, Orrick’s ruling didn’t find the policy necessarily unconstitutional, he just stated that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face “immediate irreparable harm” if the policy were allowed to be put into place. It probably has nothing to do with him being put on the bench by Obama, right? He didn’t care when Big O threatened cities but I digress. .:thinking:
[/quote]

He didn’t care? I have no idea if he did or didn’t - judges don’t just “care” about things publicly, they opine on issues brought to them in a lawsuit. Complaining that Orrick stopped Trump here but not Obama on his EO makes no sense, unless someone sued to have Obama stopped in his court.

You want to make Orrick’s ruling about raw politics without any basis for doing so.[quote=“norse84, post:7046, topic:223365”]
With that said, the WH needs to be more clear on what actually constitutes as a sanctuary city and be more clear on what they expect out of the states.
[/quote]

Actually, the WH needs Congress to change the law to give Trump more flexibility.[quote=“norse84, post:7046, topic:223365”]
As for your title ix spiel, I would love the rationalization behind pulling funding for universities who make people use the bathroom that their sex determines they use…
[/quote]

You’re SOL, I don’t have one. First, I don’t know the particulars in how Title IX allows for withholding of funds for non-compliance (it allows it, but I’m sure it is specific to certain circumstances). But, the threat was always a naked one to bully states into compliance, and one that wouldn’t go very far - states would sue very quickly and would win on the basis there is no transgender class in law to be protected under Title IX, so you can be out of compliance on a law that doesn’t exist.

-Isn’t fighting for wall funding in the budget
-Is staffing up with Wall Street elites who won’t put the brakes on globalist economics

What creates the “huge PR mess” is the left wing claiming that the republicans only care about the wealthy. Trumps tax plan cuts taxes for all groups yet the left focuses on only the rich. It is completely dishonest. And while I am a job creator what’s wrong with a high paid executive who makes 1 million per year getting a tax cut as well? If he has 5% more of his money that means he has $50,000 that he will be able to put back into the economy by purchasing more goods and services. When the government steals your money no one wins except the government which gets larger and more out of control.

What ‘tax plan’? All he’s put out is the equivalent pf a press release.

1 Like

Trump gets a solid “B” for his first 100 days (an arbitrary point in time).

  1. Reversed Obama’s executive orders.

  2. signed 13 to roll back excessive regulations

  3. Punished Syria for using chemical weapons

  4. Killed 17 Isis leaders in the MOAB attack

  5. Appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

  6. Illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border down approximately 50%

  7. With a few exceptions appointed a great cabinet

  8. Small business owners optimism is at a 12 year high according to the NFIB

If he would have gotten the Obamacare overhaul I would have given him an “A”

Proposed tax plan.

Is that better?

Nope. Reagan’s ‘proposed tax plan’ was ~1300 pages long. When Trump’s proposal reaches that level of detail, we can start calling it a ‘proposed tax plan.’ Until then, it’s ‘Trump’s tax-related propaganda statement.’

A ‘B’??!! That’s pretty funny. Most POTUSes have signed at least one major piece of legislation by now. Has Trump?

BTW, how’s that wall coming along?

Obama managed to get the Congress to pass some 60 pieces of legislation related to repealing/curtailing the ACA. Trump can’t get them to pass one. Ironic, huh?

2 Likes

Jeb Bush would have done all but #6

16 million dollars to kill 17 members of ISIS. 1 guy with a couple high powered weapons can kill 49 people.

Makes you think.

Compared to the normal cost of killing a single militant, Trumps strike was incredibly cost-effective

I like it when you bragged about Reagan. At the time you hated him…anyway. A proposal can be 2000 pages or one page…or a few words. But the importance of the idea was put across for certain. I look forward to more details obviously.

That’s funny…you are like a guy who deliberately breaks a mans leg and then laughs at him for limping. The dems have blocked and attacked Trump at every turn and then you have the balls to say the above. ha ha…Okay…for what he has had to work with he definitely gets a “B”. He has done most everything that I expected in the first 100 days. As I was well aware that the dems would do exactly to Trump what the republicans did to Obama. That’s how the …(oh my some hate when I say this…) GAME IS PLAYED.

Edit: I will clarify that the dems are better at “The Game” than the republicans…no question.

I was never a big fan of any of the Bush’s but quite honestly Jeb would have been just fine as President and I agree with you on all counts.

War is expensive. But so is avoiding war and other such conflicts as Obama (mostly) did for 8 years. At this point Isis knows there’s a new sheriff in town. Let’s see what effect killing 16 of their top guys…and giving the rest a very uneasy feeling on where to hide out… has on the war on terror.

How legitimate a threat is ISIS to Americans?

Don’t send Americans within arms reach of ISIS by sending them overseas, and don’t allow muslim immigration to America. Now how can ISIS attack America?

I am not for sending troops to fight Isis, at least not on a long-term basis. For example, if intelligence informed the military that there was going to be a large gathering of Isis fighters in one particular place. After a complete bombing I would not be opposed to sending in troops to clean up what the Air Force may have missed.