The First 100 days

Really, you made consistent posts calling out Obama as a liar?

 

Some of these are fair criticisms (foreign policy, Obamacare replacement), but some of this isn't fair. It's too early to call him a failure on the tax package and getting a budget passed. It's also too early to hit him on TTIP. If he pitches a TTIP that's basically the same as what was under consideration before, then you can rip him for it. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with resurrecting talks and trying to get a better deal for both sides, and that wouldn't be a flip-flop. He said he didn't like TTIP as it was done at the time. That doesn't mean he fundamentally opposes any kind of trade deal with the EU.

 

I just tried the board's search function, limited to this thread, for the quote "Obama is a liar." No post from you

 

December 22, 2013 - took me less than one minute to find.

 

However, a search using Trump is a liar for this thread alone shows you with 3 separate posts

 

The failure on tax cuts and the budget is more the case of magical thinking than a flip-flop. It won't happen because of the realities of how much debt we have and because Congress is dysfunctional.

Trump stated prior to the election he would make trade deals independently on a nation by nation basis. TTIP isn't that. It's a globalist construct where a "board" will administrate disputes and sovereignty is virtually eliminated. And I imagine it will be negotiated in secrecy as before. Only time will tell.

 

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with him breaking a promise or flip-flopping. Furthermore, there's still a lot of time to do that stuff. It's not out of the question.

I don't recall Trump ever saying he'd never negotiate trade with the EU on trade. Do you have a link on that? (Keep in mind that you can't negotiate trade policy with an EU-member independently of the EU. It's illegal for EU countries to do that.) Again, the point is that it's too early to get on him for this. (To be clear, I don't like TTIP as it was done. It was a crappy deal for both sides.)

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ried-trump-moves-toward-bi-lateral-trade/amp/

This article is post election. I don't know if Trump specifically ever stated he would "only" negotiate bilaterally and would never succumb to a comprehensive deal such as TTIP or TPP, but that was the position generally accepted as what his stance was.

 

Here's the money quote in the article from Spicer.

Instead, the new President’s government “will pursue bilateral trade opportunities with allies around the globe”, Spicer told reporters at his maiden news conference on Monday, adding: “When you’re entering into these multilateral agreements you’re allowing any country, no matter the size, any one of those 12, including us, to basically have the same stature of the U.S. in the agreement.”

 

Mr. Deez has proven himself to be the most principled on this board. He was critical of Obama many times but most vocal on the "if you like your insurance you'll get to keep it" line.

 

Really? Your actions and posts belie that "standard". Criticize Obama...defend Trump (except Obamacare Repeal/Replace).

 

Trump and Wilbur Ross both said they strongly prefer and will focus on Bilateral deals. The POTUS said Britain would go "to the front of the line" which also inferred that EU would fall back in terms of priority.

That's all a smokescreen though as Trump is likely a globalist when it comes to trade thus if there is an opportunity for a deal with the EU, he'll take it.

 

Joe fan, you're wasting your time, Bro. We both know countless DT voters knew damn well he wasn't going to attempt to deport ALL illegals.

It's the same negotiation style over and over. Go bold and loud demanding the world and drawing outrage. Negotiate it back to something everyone can live with but still solves a big problem.

He announced his final position countless times to the nation before anyone had to pull the lever for him to be the next President. Flip flop my a**.

Remove criminal illegals, fix H1B's, combat Visa overstays, implement e-verify, build the wall, curb the refugee flow, etc. Those are the immigration areas I voted for. Not one of them had a chance under HRC...they would've be abused even more than Obama.

I also understand each of those has very high hurdles and opposition to overcome and they will take time to fully address. Anyone who expected all of those highly contentious immigration issues to be handled within 100 days is living in fantasy land.

Even before he stated it in front of the nation several times pre-election I knew that's where he would end up. I know several others that knew the same and voted for him.

A lot of Texas real estate developers I know are DT supporters. So they voted DT believing he has a 'no exceptions' deportation policy that would gut their workforce?

Having someone who voted against our candidate tell the base what assumptions we were under and what we believed our candidate's policy was before we voted is naive.

 

"That's all a smokescreen though as Trump is likely a globalist when it comes to trade thus if there is an opportunity for a deal with the EU, he'll take it."

In a nutshell, that's the bottom line. For a great many people (most of whom don't even realize it) the election choice was based on globalism vs nationalism. Trump represented himself as a nationalist. That facade is steadily being eroded. His cabinet picks and advisors consist of billionaire oligarchs, Goldman bankers, and neocon generals.

 

I practiced law for several years. I understand negotiation. I did it for a living. Political promises are not negotiations, but if you have to frame it that way to be able to tell yourself that you didn't get snowed, that's fine.

It's incredible. Why would any politician tell you the truth about anything? And how can you call Obama a liar? Maybe "if you like your plan you can keep it" was just a negotiation.

The relevant event isn't the general election. It's the primary.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that he preferred bilateral deals, but I read Spicer's comment as reflecting a preference, not a hard and fast rule. Let's put it this way. When I was talking to Nigel Farage (sorry, had to name drop - lol) about this, Trump had just made the statement that he wanted to do a deal with the UK within 90 days. It was in stark contrast to the "back of the queue" comment that Obama made, but that was in the context of Brexit. He told us that the US would probably negotiate a deal with the UK and another with the EU. If Trump was categorically against multilateral deals, he would have said so, and since Nigel talks directly with Trump on this sort of thing, I defer to him. lol

And this makes a lot more sense. If we completely refused to do multilateral deals, we'd be writing off the entire EU - no deals with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and until Brexit is finished, the UK. That's a lot of very important trade partners to just blow off.

 

What are the chances the Trump admin grants Exxon's waiver request?

 

Trump just stated he wants a "reciprocal" trade deal with Italy in his news conference with the Italian PM. Is this possible? I thought individual members of the EU weren't allowed to negotiate their own deals.

 

Want to find a consensus on Repeal/Replace Obamacare? Everybody agrees that removing the "pre-existing conditions" mandate would be bad PR. It would look heartless, right? We have to care for our most indigent. But this is also a huge cost driver for the ACA. Solution? Claim "pre-existing conditions" care remains at the Federal level but give the States the right to move these people into their own high risk pool thereby lowering the cost of healthcare for others and leaving these individuals back where they started, unable to afford health insurance. Sounds like a plan? Let's go vote!

 

"The Republican National Committee on Friday announced it raised $41.5 million in the first three months of 2017, its strongest-ever total for the first quarter following a presidential race."​

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/329850-rnc-nets-record-415m-first-quarter

 

Draining the swamp?

 

He got the SCOTUS pick right and got him confirmed. Everything after that is gravy IMO. I predict there is going to be a lot of gravy. Maybe not yuge, overflowing gobs to where you are sick of gravy, but lots of gravy, nonetheless.

This endless attempt to separate DT from his voters by pointing out this thing or that thing he has not done yet, and extrapolating that to mean he will never get it done, is childish and not going to work.

 

He deserves credit for his SCOTUS nominee. Of course, he could have failed on that too and his base wouldn't care. Overall, they are about "team" and it their team against everyone else. No matter how much Trump sh!ts the bed they'll gladly revel in it, excuse it then claim it smells like roses.

Here is Bill Maher's breakdown of a recent Pew Poll that shows that Republicans primarily care about "team".

 

Well done President Trump on congratulating Erdogan on his ability to seize greater power in Turkey.

Now he's attacking the Kurds that were helping us in our battle against ISIS. Oh, he also decided to round up 1000 "opposition" figures. Could it be we've returned to the days of supporting dictators? Next we'll sell them more weapons then wait 20-30 years before going to war against them.

 

We never left the days of supporting dictators. See the entire Gulf Alliance.

 

From Southpoint:

On April 25, the Turkish Air Force bombed the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) General Command HQ in the Mount Karachok near the town of Al-Malikiyah, according to a statement released by the YPG General Command. Airstrikes also hit “a media center, a local radio station [Voice of Rojava FM], communication headquarters and some military institutions.” The YPG Central Command also confirmed causalities among YPG members and civilians. According to pro-Kurdish sources, about 20 persons were killed in the airstrikes. The YPG is a core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces operating in Syria.

In turn, the Turkish military released a statement saying that Turkish warplanes had bombed members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Syria and in northern Iraq. Ankara sees the YPG as a branch of the PKK in Syria and describes it as a terrorist group. According to the statement, some 70 PKK members were killed in the air raids [30 – in Syria, 40 – in Iraq] and the targets were hit to prevent the PKK from sending “terrorists, arms, ammunition and explosives to Turkey.” The Turkish statement clearly dismissed speculations that Ankara forces hit US-backed fighters in Syria by mistake.

Turkish President Recep Erdogan said the US and Russia were informed of the attacks. However, the Pentagon said, “These airstrikes were not approved by the Counter ISIS Coalition and led to the unfortunate loss of life of our partner forces.”

In the same statement, Erdogan argued that Moscow is softening support for the Assad government referring to an alleged conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, the Turkish artillery started shelling of YPG/SDF positions near Tell Rifat in northern Aleppo.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has accidently acknowledged that Israel has an open communications channel with the ISIS terrorist group, or at least its part operating in the Syrian Golan Heights. Speaking about Israel’s neutrality in the Syrian war on Satuday, Ya’alon said that the terrorist group apologized for opening fire on Israeli Defense Forces soldiers in the occupied Golan Heights. “There was one case recently where Daesh [ISIS] opened fire and apologized,” the Times of Israel quoted Ya’alon as saying. The statement was likely a reference to a clash that took place near the Syrian border last November, in which IDF troops exchanged fire with ISIS members.

 

Oh the irony. Ann Coulter has been banging on Trump for weeks (< 100 days in) about not keeping what she believed to be "zero tolerance" illegal immigration promises.

So the last few days she publicly boasts and vows she'd be speaking at Berkeley tomorrow despite the school's cancellation and radicals fighting against it.

Guess it's okay for Ann to break her promise to speak out against illegal immigration at Berkeley because of strong resistance, but not okay for DT to alter his approach to solve the actual problems while navigating massive legal and political minefields.

Guess "no excuses" Ann just learned the hard truth that fluid situations and levels of resistance require being adaptive to achieve goals. Picking your battles where they can be won or where the juice is worth the squeeze is called effective strategy.

 

I voted for him and I'm starting to separate, but it wasn't the DNC or media that made it happen. It's DT and his legislatively/strategically inept circle. You give him way too much credit for the SCOTUS appointment. While he may have made the ultimate pick, he certainly didn't do the vetting and he had almost zero to do with getting him confirmed.

Their execution up to this point has been abysmal. While they may be pursuing things I prefer, they are doing it poorly. A series of EO's doesn't do much for us long term. And while it could have been worse with a Dem at the helm, it could have been much better with a Rep at the helm that didn't actively initiate disagreements with anybody and everybody around him.

Right now, I see three wins (China>NK, Ill. Imm way down, SCOTUS apt). The only one that last long without further significant action is the SCOTUS appt. Not the 100 days I was hoping for.

 

Word is that a breakthrough might be at hand as the Freedom Caucus is supposed to now be endorsing latest version of the Obamacare repeal compromise