Donald's First 100 Days and Before

[Admiral Piett]

While we all know Trump is for fixing relations with Russia, I'm not too sure about the rest of the republican establishment. So, Americans, do you think he will actually manage to do it? Will he have enough control of congress? Another problem is the military lobby. Trump's for spending ludicrous amounts of money on the military-industrial complex, and this machine needs a bogeyman like Putin & Russia to keep getting funded...

So what do you think, can he force the end of sanctions without much trouble, or will the neocon hawks keep it from happening?

This is a very important point and it's one of the things I'm really on Trump's side. I wonder who he's gonna get for Sec of State and just how much of a network builder they are to get the legislature on his side on this. Trump faces criticism from Mike Pence over the issue, but he doesn't seem at all phased about it. We can only hope that Trump is serious about a restoration of cooperation with the Russians. As far as the boogeyman, he has clearly made China to fill that role and for the most part is more concerned about a war of economics than a war of material of the current administration.

[fkizz]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Big Beautiful Powerful Wall

If he manages to actually build the Wall and scrap NAFTA, I'll concede him to be as genuine and competent

[geyserik]

Hours after Trump visits the White House TTP is announced dead in the water! Scratch 1 for Trump!

[removeduser_487563287433]

So you have one candidate funded by billionaires, bribed by billionaires, funded by the Saudis, funded by Qatar, funded by extremely wealthy celebs, funded by big Pharma, funded by lawyers, the list goes on.

And you have one candidate funded by individual donors as his major contributor, funded by himself for about 25% of it.

And you are going to try to push the narrative that its billionaires for billionaires by Trump?



Tell me more!

He may say the right things, but that's what demagogues do, and there's always been idiots to greedily gobble up that shite.

[Gaidin]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Big Beautiful Powerful Wall

If he manages to actually build the Wall and scrap NAFTA, I'll concede him to be as genuine and competent

Reality check. NAFTA is at best modified unless Trump's goal is to piss off Canada. So you're not scrapping NAFTA. And there's no way he's building that wall in 8 years, much less 4, given the length of that border.

[swabian]

What incentive does clinton have to rip up the nuclear treaty? She represents more status quo for foreign relations, which seems to be more covert action less invasions. I'm personally more focused on the home front, so that appeals to me.

I would be too, if i were a US citizen, of course. Iran is a different topic...

The unfortunate reality that's come to my attention is that "Middle America" is suffering an enormous economic and societal calamity and Trumps pull was that he was telling them he would help. It doesn't matter if he will or even can (he probably can't), because what did clinton have to offer them? Education subsidies, a safety net, and infrastructure? Many of these people don't want to go to school, they're still dreaming of the unskilled labor their grandfathers did, they hate handouts even though they are receiving them because it's emasculating in their culture, and what good would infrastructure do them? Rampant meth addiction, alcoholism, it paints a very depressing picture of the current state of rural america and their future.

Hm... are we really talking about mostly lumberjacks, fishermen and the like (no disrespect, i do respect hard physical labour and it's not like there is no brains involved in it in many cases)? The American middle class or working class can't be all that uneducated imo, it just means people with income in the middle range. I'm not American, so i'm tempted to trust your judgement rather than mine, therefore the question. Didn't Hillary basically announce to proceed with Obamas policies? Where are the critical differences? Is the "average Joe" stupid, because they, by majority, decided to expect from Clinton the same approach as Obama's? And who says they even blame Obama? Maybe it's just plain desperation in many cases?

[Basil II the B.S]

Reality check. NAFTA is at best modified unless Trump's goal is to piss off Canada. So you're not scrapping NAFTA. And there's no way he's building that wall in 8 years, much less 4, given the length of that border.

Trudeau has already said he's willing to re-negotiate NAFTA with Trump.

He's a weakling and incompetent and there's absolutely nothing to worry about about as long as he's in power.

[Diocle]

Dude, I feel a lot of rage and pain in your posting style and this is causing a great emotional stress on me, remember please, you are talking about the President of the United States and about the millions American citizens who voted for him.

In my opinion you leftist guys have still to contextualize your pain for the total annihilation of Hillary Clinton and for what you see as the end of your last hope; OK, Hillary has been annihilated, the Democrats are at their minimum in the last half century, Obama is gone forever, Britain is out of Europe once for all, but c'mon, you're still alive!
Please Ferret, try be constructive, don't forget that "After all, tomorrow is another day!" (OMG! .. what a wonderful movie! I always cry at this point!)



After all Obamacare was not so good and about the Supreme Court .. I've read the Trump's candidate should be a Christian guy of good will, OK perhaps he is not the Leninist of your dreams but you cannot get always what you want! About the wall .. yes the wall will be longer, higher and more militarized than ever, but .. fear not Ferret, you'll still get in Britain your Syrian Refugees from Senegal and Nigeria and Congo, they're still coming here in Italy at tons just now while I'm writing and, .. as you know very well, in less than three days they will be there, in UK! Do you see? .. as says Rosella: "After all, tomorrow is another day!"

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't think you understand what an opposition does in a democracy.

[Gaidin]

Trudeau has already said he's willing to re-negotiate NAFTA with Trump.

I don't think you understand what renegotiating means vs scrapping.

[empr guy]

I wrote:
1). Your link above to the DHS statement does not mention Trump or support for Trump.
2). Did you actually read the NYT article _you_ provided to support your assertion?

The DHS link still does not say anything about Trump. It does not support your assertion.

Your link to the NYT to support your assertion about the Russian Diplomat contains the following:
"But law enforcement officials said that their investigations found no direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government in the hacking of the Democrats’ computers. They also found no conclusive evidence of financial connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian financial institutions."

I note that you did not supply that link when you first made your claim.

Either you did not read the article, or you did, knew it did not support your assertion, and chose not to link it because of that.

I'm not sure what the issue is, they said russia was behind all the hacking and leaks, that were benefiting trump, which they may have done anyway but the shady part is the combination with all the other issues I mentioned, and stuff like claiming he doesn't know putin at all when pressed on this issue during the debate even though in the past he's bragged about their relationship.

Also yes, my NYT story used themselves as a source (the story you linked to) for their claim the FBI found no links, but like I said I don't believe the investigation is complete yet.

Hm... are we really talking about mostly lumberjacks, fishermen and the like (no disrespect, i do respect hard physical labour and it's not like there is no brains involved in it in many cases)? The American middle class or working class can't be all that uneducated imo, it just means people with income in the middle range. I'm not American, so i'm tempted to trust your judgement rather than mine, therefore the question. Didn't Hillary basically announce to proceed with Obamas policies? Where are the critical differences? Is the "average Joe" stupid, because they, by majority, decided to expect from Clinton the same approach as Obama's? And who says they even blame Obama? Maybe it's just plain desperation in many cases?

The terms aren't concrete but unskilled labor usually means things like farming or assembly line factory jobs where you would need employee training but not a college degree. There are a lot of other types, but those two always get the most attention because technology and globalization has decimated them and they're comparing today to decades ago when they could work those and start a family, buy a house, the American dream and all that. Coal mining is another big loser, in part because the EPA, more recently because natural gas and oil have become so cheap.

The problem with the recovery is that a lot of economic growth is concentrated in cities. Things aren't peak recession bad, but they're not good either. It's not like everyone beyond the suburbs in unemployed but many of the communities have a lot fewer quality jobs or they're just gone altogether. So when Hillary brings up all the economic data saying things are getting better and we need to stay the course Obama created, I think that there is a lot of desperation and despair that they're being forgotten again. Then Trump comes along and tells them everything they want to hear; he knows why their jobs are gone and he can bring them back. Additionally, I think as a result of their economic problems, alcoholism and opioid abuse are running rampant and destroying peoples lives. There hasn't been a national response yet, and they take it as just another time Washington has not cared about their problems.

This isn't to say Hillary wasn't offering them anything, making college more affordable, technology and infrastructure investments, these things could have helped but not in the way they wanted. People don't want to give up their way of life, which is understandable but telling someone their way of life is dead doesn't make them like you, where Trump said he would fix everything instead of making them change.

It's also not to say this was some huge, unavoidable disaster that the democrats could never have fixed, the vote margin in Michigan was 12,000 votes out of about 500,000, the margin in Wisconsin 17,000 out of nearly 300,000. PA was 70K difference out of ~600K; narrow margins and I expect the democrats will regain these states in 2020 when they revise their message. Trump not actually doing anything for them would help, but that depends on a lot of factors, many of which he can't control so who knows.

You can also read more about the substance abuse issues here if you wish;
Tom Vilsack’s lonely fight for a ‘forgotten’ rural America

And read here for a bit of perspective on the cultural issues
How Half Of America Lost Its ing Mind

[Heathen Hammer]

He may say the right things, but that's what demagogues do, and there's always been idiots to greedily gobble up that shite.

I don't think you understand what a demagogue is.
That would be a politician who appeals to popular prejudices instead of rational arguments, which is exactly what his opponent did. While Trump was talking about boring adult stuff like economy and foreign policy, HRC's talking points were based on fearmongering, taking her opponent's quotes out of context and blaming Russia and green frog pictures.
And clearly there weren't enough idiots among Americans, since she lost.

[Infidel144]

I'm not sure what the issue is, they said russia was behind all the hacking and leaks, that were benefiting trump, which they may have done anyway but the shady part is the combination with all the other issues I mentioned, and stuff like claiming he doesn't know putin at all when pressed on this issue during the debate even though in the past he's bragged about their relationship.

Also yes, my NYT story used themselves as a source (the story you linked to) for their claim the FBI found no links, but like I said I don't believe the investigation is complete yet.

The NYT used law enforcement officials as a source. Your article contradicted your own assertion.

Either you did not read your article, or you did and did not supply it in your initial post because it did contradict your assertion.
Which one is it?

"And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump."

[Cyclops]

...

As for the first 100 days? How Trump and Ryan manage to work together will be crucial I think. With Congress red that's going to be his biggest hurdle.

Spot on, Clinton and the democrats are utterly irrelevant at this point. Congress has served as the opposition in the US system practically forever, and the entrenched elements there are precisely what Trump has attacked almost as consistently as he attacked Clinton: the Swamp, the lobbyists, the revolving door and the foreign influence.

Trump may have very little play here. Congress has played a straight bat at Obama for 8 years (not sure how he got Obamacare through, but he's a Chicago Democrat so political skulduggery is in his blood), and while they cooperated with Bush he was a Swamp Thing like them.Trump can veto-wall them to irritate them(but if they get really riled they can combine to send up veto-proof their bills) but they can impeach him.

Trump has positioned himself as "taking on the System". They may swallow him whole. I hope he does take them on and smashes a big hole in the whole military/industrial/energy/pharma racket but he's a business man, if he actually does well they will probably buy him off.

I guess the objection is "Trump's popular, no sensible congressman will oppose him because they will never get re-elected" but the two party/incumbocratican system favours the legislator over the executor: they have just been re-elected so they will be feeling armoured against poll dips, and it they can bank on voter amnesia.

[RedGuard]

Hard to say you are for draining the swamp when your VP has been a governor and congressman for 20+ years.

your either for draining the swamp or your not.

BUt if you are for it, that means getting rid of career republicans as well as democrats in congress.

[tgoodenow]

Hard to say you are for draining the swamp when your VP has been a governor and congressman for 20+ years.

your either for draining the swamp or your not.

BUt if you are for it, that means getting rid of career republicans as well as democrats in congress.

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451...first-100-days

I doubt it will pass congress, but I'm not sure how else he can try to do it.

[Ludicus]

... the main priority of the USA should be improving education for the entire country. This is not a matter of left or right, everyone benefits from this.

Well, certainly not the far-right, in the US or in Europe.

It's not a coincidence that left-wing thinking prevails in schools. Who elected Trump? middle age white +- illiterate people from suburban and rural areas, the rust belt and the emotional "rage against the machine".
Keep in mind that, according to the statistics,although you can't say simply that democrats are more educated than republicans,there is a trend for people with higher levels of degree achievement to either be democrats/vote democratic, there is a prevalent democratic identification among adults with post-graduate degrees.
1) A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation by Pew
And look,
2) Protesters target Trump buildings in street rallies across the US

In Europe, it's more or less the same thing,
Education's impact on explanations of far right-wing voting

By pooling the European Social Surveysfrom 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, we test Europe-wide the extent to which ideological andprotest explanations of radical right-wing voting differ between higher and lower educatedpeople. Generally, the lower educated base their choice for the radical right less onideological attitudes and political distrust than the higher educated.

The lower educated whodo not support the core ideology of the radical right are still relatively likely to vote the radical right. Our findings have strong implications for understanding why lower social stratavote for the radical right; we need to develop alternative explanations for why lower educatedpeople who do not support radical right ideologies still vote for these parties.

In my opinion, if the Democratic Party wants to win the next elections, he needs to turn a little more to the left, +- Bernie's style (winning the vote of educated people 45 age or younger) or turn a little more the right, appealing to conservative votes. Even in a time/era of very vocal internet users, young reactionary people is a minority.

Anyway, Trump won the election, he deserves to rule the country...and the American people gets what it deserves.

[Basil II the B.S]

Those sound a lot like the classist intellectualism that caused Hillary's defeat tbh.

''The ignorant working class is great as long as they vote for us''.

The truth is, they asked for a change in 2008, Obama answered that call, but as soon as he got elected he went celebrating and forgot about it.
The phone kept ringing for 8 years, the first idiot that walked by answered that call. It was Trump.

Stop raging against the ''ignorant working class'', it was the intellectuals that betrayed them. Again, some are waking up and realized what happened. However the Democrat establishment is still firm on identity politics where they put the black and hispanic working class against the white. That's how you create Trump.

[Cyclops]

I don't think you understand what a demagogue is.

"a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." says Google.

That would be a politician who appeals to popular prejudices instead of rational arguments, which is exactly what his opponent did.

Just because Clinton was toxic doesn't mean trump isn't. Its exactly what he did too. To be fair both candidates also made motherhood statements about greatness and togetherness, but policy was backgrounded by personality this time around.

While Trump was talking about boring adult stuff like economy and foreign policy,

Calculated bigotry and wishful thinking about walls and vindictive threats are not "adult stuff". Trump has blown smoke like the professional he is to the extent no one has any idea what he will do next. He has seized the political initiative like no one realised he could.

HRC's talking points were based on fearmongering, taking her opponent's quotes out of context and blaming Russia and green frog pictures.

Indeed she foolishly fell into the same methodology as the media who favoured her: she spoke too often about her opponent and gave him free publicity. Her campaign blunders don't make him a statesman though.

And clearly there weren't enough idiots among Americans, since she lost.

I'm confident the US is not in idiocy deficit.

A mate of mine told me in 2006 that it was a political truism Hilary Clinton was unelectable as President because she and Bill were disliked for being opportunist arrivistes and her personality too was unappealing: she and they had generated a bedrock of negativity ranging from strong dislike to active hatred in a massive sector of both parties.

I was sure she had Obama's number in 2007, even more than I was sure she had Trumps earlier this year. Seems she was a genuine dud as a politician.

[Prodromos]

Since when does getting a Bachelor's in Homosexual Studies make one more "educated" than everyone else? Studies have shown that today's postsecondary education is largely useless at educating people. I highly doubt four years learning about Che's Leadership Qualities and social justice, means one is more intelligent than average. Most college degrees aren't in medicine or law or anything of the sort. University's basically high school for adults nowadays.