President Trump's first week....

[Stalker]

Any opinions? I admire his constitution. Indefatigable! And that he is enacting policy rather than rhetoric. Immigration, trade, freezes, Supreme Court appointee next week, etc....show action on his part.
Of course the media hates this, that he is actually doing something that will prove them as wrong about him as they were with their polls.
Let's hear some opinions guys.

 

[paul from philly]

Any opinions? I admire his constitution. Indefatigable! And that he is enacting policy rather than rhetoric. Immigration, trade, freezes, Supreme Court appointee next week, etc....show action on his part.
Of course the media hates this, that he is actually doing something that will prove them as wrong about him as they were with their polls.
Let's hear some opinions guys.

These protests are getting really tiring. What are they gonna do, run onto the runway? Take the immigrants by force? Talk about over-the-top!! Relax, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow!!

 

[tulla]

Any opinions? I admire his constitution. Indefatigable! And that he is enacting policy rather than rhetoric. Immigration, trade, freezes, Supreme Court appointee next week, etc....show action on his part.
Of course the media hates this, that he is actually doing something that will prove them as wrong about him as they were with their polls.
Let's hear some opinions guys.

You asked for opinions. Mine is very different.

The executive order on immigration was, at best amateurishly executed. Apparently, Trump's inner circle did not run it by their own legal counsel and it was opposed by Homeland Security. It has alarmed virtually every American ally, with the exception of Netanyahu. Even the Conservative British Foreign Secretary has come out strongly against it, and several Republican senators are saying, essentially, it was a screw up. Maybe many Trump supporters will say "who cares! It's America First"! But do they really want it to be America alone? Since 9/11 the U.S,, Canada, and Mexico have developed a North American security zone so that if someone flies into Mexico City or Toronto their information is shared with the U.S. the same way it would be if they were flying into Philly. Picking a needless fight with Mexico isn't going to strengthen that arrangement.

What we've also continued to see is a president who wants to create an alternative reality, who's willing to stand in front of the wall dedicated to CIA agents who sacrificed their lives and go on and on about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and attack the press, who obviously can't bear the fact that he lost the popular vote, and who denies that he ever criticized the intelligence community about a week after he compared their work to that of Nazi Germany. I'm still waiting for him to come forward with evidence of his claim that hundreds--or was it thousands?--of Muslims publicly celebrated the attack on the WTC in Jersey. His complete inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that he got something wrong is deeply troubling.

One of Trump's executive orders was to prohibit U.S. funds from going to organizations that provide information about abortion and/or abortion services abroad. People have honest disagreements about abortion. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump, whose public position until he was in his 60's was in support of Roe vs. Wade, cares about the issue other than a means of securing the votes of those for whom it is a "litmus test" issue?

Watching him sign one executive order after another, each one elaborately encased in leather binding. each signing designed to depict him as a man of action surrounded by admiring staffers, struck me an just like a reality TV show, with him playing the part of the all-powerful CEO. He doesn't need an executive order to ask him senior military team to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. He can simply tell his defense secretary and head of the joint chiefs to do so. Several of the other EOs were also just for show.

The stock market is up, but if the market is your guide please check the movement of the market since the election of Obama in 2008.

I could go on ...

 

[reluctant_to_comment]

Couldn't have said it any better trulla.

 

[paul from philly]

You asked for opinions. Mine is very different.

The executive order on immigration was, at best amateurishly executed. Apparently, Trump's inner circle did not run it by their own legal counsel and it was opposed by Homeland Security. It has alarmed virtually every American ally, with the exception on Netanyahu. Even the Conservative British Foreign Secretary has come out strongly against it, and several Republican senators are saying, essentially, it was a screw up. Maybe many Trump supporters will say "who cares! It's America First"! But do they really want it to be America alone? Since 9/11 the U.S,, Canada, and Mexico have developed a North American security zone so that if someone flies into Mexico City or Toronto their information is shared with the U.S. the same way it would be if they were flying into Philly. Picking a needless fight with Mexico isn't going to strengthen that arrangement.

What we've also continued to see is a president who wants to create an alternative reality, who's willing to stand in front of the wall dedicated to CIA agents who sacrificed their lives and go on and on about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and attack the press, who obviously can't bear the fact that he lost the popular vote, and who denies that he ever criticized the intelligence community about a week after he compared their work to that of Nazi Germany. I'm still waiting for him to come forward with evidence of his claim that hundreds--or was it thousands?--of Muslims publicly celebrated the attack on the WTC in Jersey. His complete inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that he got something wrong is deeply troubling.

One of Trump's executive orders was to prohibit U.S. funds from going to organizations that provide information about abortion and/or abortion services abroad. People have honest disagreements about abortion. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump, whose public position until he was in his 60's was in support of Roe vs. Wade, cares about the issue other than a means of securing the votes of those for whom it is a "litmus test" issue?

Watching him sign one executive order after another, each one elaborately encased in leather binding. each signing designed to depict him as a man of action surrounded by admiring staffers, struck me an just like a reality TV show, with him playing the part of the all-powerful CEO. He doesn't need an executive order to ask him senior military team to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. He can simply tell his defense secretary and head of the joint chiefs to do so. Several of the other EOs were also just for show.

The stock market is up, but if the market is your guide please check the movement of the market since the election of Obama in 2008.

I could go on ...

Tulla, pretty much agree with everything you say about the way Donald presents things and goes about implementing them. He is a narcissist with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon. But please don't give O'Bama credit for the stock market and the American economy. The Federal Reserve runs the economy. With interest rates so low, it was free money. Did O'Bama lower the rates? Did O'Bama create millions of well paying full time jobs? Where the economy was, there was no place to go but up. Sort of like when Ed Rendell took over Philly.

 

[tulla]

Tulla, pretty much agree with everything you say about the way Donald presents things and goes about implementing them. He is a narcissist with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon. But please don't give O'Bama credit for the stock market and the American economy. The Federal Reserve runs the economy. With interest rates so low, it was free money. Did O'Bama lower the rates? Did O'Bama create millions of well paying full time jobs? Where the economy was, there was no place to go but up. Sort of like when Ed Rendell took over Philly.

Paul,
I'm not saying Obama deserves most of the credit for the rise in the stock market since he was first elected, but people should remember the state of the economy in the fall of 2008, particularly the state of the auto industry. We also know not to equate the Dow Jones average with the overall health of the economy. Trump is obviously taking credit for the Dow's going over 20,000. Let's see where we stand in terms of employment and incomes in 2-4 years. I hope incomes in real terms and employment are up, but I'm not very confident.

Lots of people point to Trump's business experience and all the money he has apparently made as indications he'll be a successful president. Lots of his businesses have failed, e.g the airline, /trump steaks, Trump University, etc. As a private businessman you can walk away from those failures, sometimes leaving contractors in the lurch, or pay $25 million and pretend there was no fault, but as president you can't behave similarly. The consequences are much greater.

 

[reluctant_to_comment]

Preach!

 

[sammyk]

Tulla those are alternative facts come on now

 

[paul from philly]

I know Trump is not the great communicator and he really needs a PR firm to figure out the best way to say something but the more things change, the more they stay the same.........

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-ovation-cracking-down-abuse-our-immigration-

Again, all on this sight know I am not and have never been a Trump supporter. But this problem on immigration has been a thorn in America's side farther back than the Clinton administration. All other administrations have "kicked the can down the road" to the point that we now have over 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. So the Donald puts his idea out there. What would any of your solutions be? Listen, to correct or change the way things are done in Washington will probably mean more issues ahead, but where do you choose to start? I personally have no problem with a three month ban on immigrants from those countries listed. In fact go ahead and add Saudi Arabia and Egypt to the list. Where I do have a problem is for people who have already been here (green card, etc.) or people who have gone through the vetting process already should not be detained or sent back. And going nuts with protests isn't helping anything. It's only playing into the media's hands. They love this stuff!! Remember the election was basically 50-50 with the electoral college deciding the outcome. So neither side will "step aside".

 

[tulla]

I know Trump is not the great communicator and he really needs a PR firm to figure out the best way to say something but the more things change, the more they stay the same.........

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-ovation-cracking-down-abuse-our-immigration-

Again, all on this sight know I am not and have never been a Trump supporter. But this problem on immigration has been a thorn in America's side farther back than the Clinton administration. All other administrations have "kicked the can down the road" to the point that we now have over 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. So the Donald puts his idea out there. What would any of your solutions be? Listen, to correct or change the way things are done in Washington will probably mean more issues ahead, but where do you choose to start? I personally have no problem with a three month ban on immigrants from those countries listed. In fact go ahead and add Saudi Arabia and Egypt to the list. Where I do have a problem is for people who have already been here (green card, etc.) or people who have gone through the vetting process already should not be detained or sent back. And going nuts with protests isn't helping anything. It's only playing into the media's hands. They love this stuff!! Remember the election was basically 50-50 with the electoral college deciding the outcome. So neither side will "step aside".

Actually, it was more like 51-49, but let's let that go ...

Paul, I think you're conflating two problems: the potential security threat people associate with refugees and other immigrants coming from the Middle East and some of south Asia, especially Pakistan and the large number of illegal aliens, most of whom are from Latin America. Have you seen evidence that the U.S. is particularly threatened by refugees from those seven countries? I would agree that many European countries have reason to feel threatened, but our situation (mainly the result of geography and much stricter currently-employed vetting systems) is very different. I also think the Executive Order and the way it was executed is particularly bad for the effort now underway in Iraq where the Iraqui army is trying to take Mosul from ISIS. About 5,000 American troops are there, largely in support. No time to be telling the people of Iraq that we want their soldiers to put their lives on the line to defeat ISIS but that we don't want any of their citizens coming to the US for the next three months.

About the 10+ million undocumented aliens. A BIG part of the situation is that many, many American businesses and individuals depend on or take advantage of this population. We all know it. Unless you address that problem, no wall is going to do much good. To set about deporting all 10 million would be virtually impossible in terms of manpower and cost--not to mention the humanitarian concerns that are genuine in some cases. (Didn't Paul Ryan recently assure a young child that her undocumented parents would not be deported?) So we need what we've needed for a long time: comprehensive immigration reform, which would certainly include more deportations. But Trump doesn't have a comprehensive plan. No piecemeal plan will work.

 

[paul from philly]

Actually, it was more like 51-49, but let's let that go ...

Paul, I think you're conflating two problems: the potential security threat people associate with refugees and other immigrants coming from the Middle East and some of south Asia, especially Pakistan and the large number of illegal aliens, most of whom are from Latin America. Have you seen evidence that the U.S. is particularly threatened by refugees from those seven countries? I would agree that many European countries have reason to feel threatened, but our situation (mainly the result of geography and much stricter currently-employed vetting systems) is very different. I also think the Executive Order and the way it was executed is particularly bad for the effort now underway in Iraq where the Iraqui army is trying to take Mosul from ISIS. About 5,000 American troops are there, largely in support. No time to be telling the people of Iraq that we want their soldiers to put their lives on the line to defeat ISIS but that we don't want any of their citizens coming to the US for the next three months.

About the 10+ million undocumented aliens. A BIG part of the situation is that many, many American businesses and individuals depend on or take advantage of this population. We all know it. Unless you address that problem, no wall is going to do much good. To set about deporting all 10 million would be virtually impossible in terms of manpower and cost--not to mention the humanitarian concerns that are genuine in some cases. (Didn't Paul Ryan recently assure a young child that her undocumented parents would not be deported?) So we need what we've needed for a long time: comprehensive immigration reform, which would certainly include more deportations. But Trump doesn't have a comprehensive plan. No piecemeal plan will work.

Tulla, you must have missed the last couple of decades. I certainly see evidence of a threat from those countries and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Here and worldwide. What am I missing? Or tell me how there doesn't seem to be a problem with refugees from these countries. And I agree there are major problems with this ban and it's implementation. But you propose what for the problem?

 

[tulla]

Tulla, you must have missed the last couple of decades. I certainly see evidence of a threat from those countries and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Here and worldwide. What am I missing? Or tell me how there doesn't seem to be a problem with refugees from these countries. And I agree there are major problems with this ban and it's implementation. But you propose what for the problem?

Paul, From what I've read there have been terrorist offenses from people who came from these seven countries. Of course, there have been some caused by people who came from Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and some other countries, but I don't think any were refugees. Several have been committed by the children of immigrants from Islamic countries. Changing the system now isn't goiing to solve that problem.

Interesting that the young man who killed the six Muslims in Quebec last night seems to have been a loner who admired Trump and Marine LePen (the French nationalist leader). If we could do something about all such isolated young men, we'd be way ahead of where we are now.

None of this is to deny that ISIS and such groups aren't serious threats. I think our intelligence and security services have been doing a good job of protecting Americans. Could the protection be enhanced? Of course, especially though more collaboration with allies. Trump's order won't do anythng to advance such collaboration.

 

[paul from philly]

Paul, From what I've read there have been terrorist offenses from people who came from these seven countries. Of course, there have been some caused by people who came from Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and some other countries, but I don't think any were refugees. Several have been committed by the children of immigrants from Islamic countries. Changing the system now isn't goiing to solve that problem.

Interesting that the young man who killed the six Muslims in Quebec last night seems to have been a loner who admired Trump and Marine LePen (the French nationalist leader). If we could do something about all such isolated young men, we'd be way ahead of where we are now.

None of this is to deny that ISIS and such groups aren't serious threats. I think our intelligence and security services have been doing a good job of protecting Americans. Could the protection be enhanced? Of course, especially though more collaboration with allies. Trump's order won't do anythng to advance such collaboration.

Totally agreed!! But I still think tougher vetting needs take place. And those 7 areas do attract a lot of attention.

 

[reluctant_to_comment]

If Trump was really serious he would have gone after Saudi and Pakistan. Most of his Executive Orders have been fluff. The way to address illegal immigration .... punish American companies who use illegal workers.

 

[njfan47]

You asked for opinions. Mine is very different.

The executive order on immigration was, at best amateurishly executed. Apparently, Trump's inner circle did not run it by their own legal counsel and it was opposed by Homeland Security. It has alarmed virtually every American ally, with the exception of Netanyahu. Even the Conservative British Foreign Secretary has come out strongly against it, and several Republican senators are saying, essentially, it was a screw up. Maybe many Trump supporters will say "who cares! It's America First"! But do they really want it to be America alone? Since 9/11 the U.S,, Canada, and Mexico have developed a North American security zone so that if someone flies into Mexico City or Toronto their information is shared with the U.S. the same way it would be if they were flying into Philly. Picking a needless fight with Mexico isn't going to strengthen that arrangement.

What we've also continued to see is a president who wants to create an alternative reality, who's willing to stand in front of the wall dedicated to CIA agents who sacrificed their lives and go on and on about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and attack the press, who obviously can't bear the fact that he lost the popular vote, and who denies that he ever criticized the intelligence community about a week after he compared their work to that of Nazi Germany. I'm still waiting for him to come forward with evidence of his claim that hundreds--or was it thousands?--of Muslims publicly celebrated the attack on the WTC in Jersey. His complete inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that he got something wrong is deeply troubling.

One of Trump's executive orders was to prohibit U.S. funds from going to organizations that provide information about abortion and/or abortion services abroad. People have honest disagreements about abortion. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump, whose public position until he was in his 60's was in support of Roe vs. Wade, cares about the issue other than a means of securing the votes of those for whom it is a "litmus test" issue?

Watching him sign one executive order after another, each one elaborately encased in leather binding. each signing designed to depict him as a man of action surrounded by admiring staffers, struck me an just like a reality TV show, with him playing the part of the all-powerful CEO. He doesn't need an executive order to ask him senior military team to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. He can simply tell his defense secretary and head of the joint chiefs to do so. Several of the other EOs were also just for show.

The stock market is up, but if the market is your guide please check the movement of the market since the election of Obama in 2008.

I could go on ...

Tulla, you always have great insight and we need much more of it on this board. And it's good to see you over here. But, "a needless fight with Mexico"? We have a $60 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico, and this is Trump negotiating to reduce the deficit and to bring back some jobs to America. Trump has Mexico where he wants them, as we have the deficit and little to lose, other than what Clinton allowed us to lose by signing NAFTA in the first place.

On the abortion issue, it might be part politics for Trump, but the thought of using US money to fund overseas abortions has to strike just about anyone as odd, if not outright stupid, although I am always willing to listen to counter arguments.

Equally surprising that you mention the popular vote, as it's not the basis on which one campaigns. I know many, many conservatives in California who don't bother to vote. I would guess that New York is the same, especially in this election with Hillary having run in her "home" state. Trump clearly could have gotten more votes in these states if he had campaigned there. But, knowing that the electoral college is the scoreboard, his strategy was perfect. The crying about the popular vote is akin to saying a team lost a football game 57-43 (the exact percentages of the electoral college final result), but really won the game because they outgained the other team 658 yards to 630 years (the exact amount of the popular vote with the last five digits omitted).

And there is no doubt that illegals voted heavily in liberal states without the same qualification that is necessary in some conservative states. My daughter (not an illegal!) walked up on election day in Minnesota, showed her passport (without having been previously registered) and cast her vote. She had only lived in her district for five months, as she was doing an internship. My guess is that she could have gone across town and voted again. Point is that liberal states have an interest in making it as easy as possible for illegals to vote, since they almost always vote for democrats. So, Trump's claims reflect reality, although many either don't want to believe it or just don't know how the system "works".

 

[tulla]

Tulla, you always have great insight and we need much more of it on this board. And it's good to see you over here. But, "a needless fight with Mexico"? We have a $60 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico, and this is Trump negotiating to reduce the deficit and to bring back some jobs to America. Trump has Mexico where he wants them, as we have the deficit and little to lose, other than what Clinton allowed us to lose by signing NAFTA in the first place.

On the abortion issue, it might be part politics for Trump, but the thought of using US money to fund overseas abortions has to strike just about anyone as odd, if not outright stupid, although I am always willing to listen to counter arguments.

Equally surprising that you mention the popular vote, as it's not the basis on which one campaigns. I know many, many conservatives in California who don't bother to vote. I would guess that New York is the same, especially in this election with Hillary having run in her "home" state. Trump clearly could have gotten more votes in these states if he had campaigned there. But, knowing that the electoral college is the scoreboard, his strategy was perfect. The crying about the popular vote is akin to saying a team lost a football game 57-43 (the exact percentages of the electoral college final result), but really won the game because they outgained the other team 658 yards to 630 years (the exact amount of the popular vote with the last five digits omitted).

And there is no doubt that illegals voted heavily in liberal states without the same qualification that is necessary in some conservative states. My daughter (not an illegal!) walked up on election day in Minnesota, showed her passport (without having been previously registered) and cast her vote. She had only lived in her district for five months, as she was doing an internship. My guess is that she could have gone across town and voted again. Point is that liberal states have an interest in making it as easy as possible for illegals to vote, since they almost always vote for democrats. So, Trump's claims reflect reality, although many either don't want to believe it or just don't know how the system "works".

nj,

A partial response.

I'm not fixated on the popular vote results, but I am really concerned that since election day Trump and several people around him have been using terms like "landslide" and "massive" to describe what was an extraordinarily close vote. Some acknowledgement that the country was roughly evenly divided would be reassuring--but it looks like there is no chance of that happening.

As for Republicans and Conservatives in California and New York not bothering to vote, it would surprise me if there were great numbers given all the down-ballot choices there were. In any case, the very same argument could be made about Clinton supporters in a great number of states. It is also true that the U.S. has some of the most restrictive voting laws and practices in the western world. For instance, I've lived in Canada where anyone not on the voter's list can walk into a polling place on the day of an election and produce evidence of identity and residence and be able to vote. I understand similar practices are common throughout western Europe.

No doubt some voter fraud exists, but to say--as Trump has--that 3-5 million people voted illegally and that they all voted for Clinton is 1) unsupported by any published evidence and by any institution that has worked in this area--and by most Republican elected officials I've heard talking about the issue and 2) a sign that Trump cannnot bear the fact / reality that more people voted for Clinton than for him.

This inability to accept facts he doesn't like is really worrisome. In the campaign he was obviously fixated on the size of his crowds. Such a fixation is a little troubling in itself. He kept talking about what a massive crowd there would be in Washington on January 20th, i.e. he encouraged everyone to pay special attention to the size of the crowd. Well, the crowd was large but not nearly as large as the crowd in 2009. He obviously was incensed when this was pointed out--even going so far as to spend much of his time at the CIA talking about it and sending out Sean Spicer in his first act as press secretary to make the crowd size issue the only thing he talked about in the late Saturday briefing. Now, I wouldn't make much of the crowd size, but the fact that Trump has in this matter and others shown himself to be unwilling to recognize facts as facts and to be accountable to what he himself has said, e.g. his comments about the intelligence community, should concern even people who agree with most of his policy positions.

I'll get to NAFTA later.

 

[Stalker]

That was fun. Everyone kept his cool and gave insightful responses. I for one enjoyed the diversity of views. Thanks!

 

[njfan47]

nj,

A partial response.

I'm not fixated on the popular vote results, but I am really concerned that since election day Trump and several people around him have been using terms like "landslide" and "massive" to describe what was an extraordinarily close vote. Some acknowledgement that the country was roughly evenly divided would be reassuring--but it looks like there is no chance of that happening.

As for Republicans and Conservatives in California and New York not bothering to vote, it would surprise me if there were great numbers given all the down-ballot choices there were. In any case, the very same argument could be made about Clinton supporters in a great number of states. It is also true that the U.S. has some of the most restrictive voting laws and practices in the western world. For instance, I've lived in Canada where anyone not on the voter's list can walk into a polling place on the day of an election and produce evidence of identity and residence and be able to vote. I understand similar practices are common throughout western Europe.

No doubt some voter fraud exists, but to say--as Trump has--that 3-5 million people voted illegally and that they all voted for Clinton is 1) unsupported by any published evidence and by any institution that has worked in this area--and by most Republican elected officials I've heard talking about the issue and 2) a sign that Trump cannnot bear the fact / reality that more people voted for Clinton than for him.

This inability to accept facts he doesn't like is really worrisome. In the campaign he was obviously fixated on the size of his crowds. Such a fixation is a little troubling in itself. He kept talking about what a massive crowd there would be in Washington on January 20th, i.e. he encouraged everyone to pay special attention to the size of the crowd. Well, the crowd was large but not nearly as large as the crowd in 2009. He obviously was incensed when this was pointed out--even going so far as to spend much of his time at the CIA talking about it and sending out Sean Spicer in his first act as press secretary to make the crowd size issue the only thing he talked about in the late Saturday briefing. Now, I wouldn't make much of the crowd size, but the fact that Trump has in this matter and others shown himself to be unwilling to recognize facts as facts and to be accountable to what he himself has said, e.g. his comments about the intelligence community, should concern even people who agree with most of his policy positions.

I'll get to NAFTA later.

Tulla, a late response after much travel. Surprising that you claim not to be fixated on the popular vote results when you bring it up in more than one or two posts.

With regard to California and New York, the point is that there are large numbers of people who don't bother to vote because the Republican/Democratic ratio is so uneven. The wider the ratio, the less the motivation to vote. Teachers/coaches in California have told me this and on more than 2-3 occasions. They tell me that lots of conservatives just don't bother, in most cases. Your mention of Canadian and European voting qualifications have absolutely no relevance to this argument. We don't need to be like them.

Equally surprising is your statement that "Trump cannot bear the fact/reality that more people voted for Clinton than for him." How would you know this?

The crowd issue is simply a matter of where one stands. My take is that the media raised this issue and made a real big deal of it. My wife's sister even called to taunt her about how small the crowd was; this happened on the day of the inauguration. She didn't see it; she heard it. I think you misunderstand Trump and his motivations. He is a fighter; he should let this stuff go, but he isn't going to let the media go on any issue. To an extent, it's refreshing to see and it's funny to watch liberals (I suspect you are one) stuck in stage 1-2 (denial and anger).

The media is distraught that:
1. They put a lot of effort into getting their candidate elected, and they failed.
2. They wanted that first woman president, and didn't get it.
3. They realize that they are hereby irrelevant with Trump in office, as he rightly points out their dishonesty and uses Twitter to communicate.
4. They realize that eight obama years went by, and they don't really know how they benefited.

I feel their (and apparently your) pain! Tough times.