Trump gave a YouTube speech Monday on what he wants to accomplish on his 100 days, and they seem to things he can accomplish with the sweep of a pen…but should he? From From The Business Insider:
In my opinion, the first will effectively kill off the TPP, the second is going to be an environmental nightmare, the third is fucking retarded, the fourth is the same as saying"I am ordering you to do what you are already busting your asses trying to do!", the fifth is vague as hell, and the sixth sounds like a solution a third-grader would come up with.
It’s all pompous, ill-considered campaign blather. Hardly any of it connects to reality.
In other words, it’s exactly what we expected from a candidate who repeatedly showed an understanding of national governance that would have embarrassed a high school sophomore.
I was led to believe that ruling by executive order was tantamount to treason. Republicans wouldn’t have lied to me, would they. Or gosh, did something change that I didn’t notice.
I’m sure the folks at the Department of Defense will be gobsmacked to hear that they should have some policies about defense. Probably never occurred to them before.
It reads like a grade 9 student running for student council - I want better soda’s in the cafe, I’ll ask the gym coach to allow us to borrow soccer balls at lunch, and I’ll get the nerds to keep studying so we can copy off them.
For good or bad, a normal practice for administration officials leaving office is to move into a lobbying position. Which means that hundreds of people in the Obama administration have been out planning their post-Obama careers. And Trump just announced he’s going to make it illegal for them to take those jobs. This is a “fuck you” to a bunch of Democrats.
It’s not clear to me that this would apply to the current Obama administration. What I’ve read seems to indicate it would start with Trump’s own administration.
It wouldn’t technically be retro-active. Trump isn’t firing people from jobs they have now. He’s just saying they can’t have certain jobs in the future. Of course, the future in this case is eight weeks from now but that still technically doesn’t qualify as retro-active.
Granted, I haven’t seen anything that explicitly says this order will go into effect immediately. But Trump has made a point that he’s going to issue it as one of his first priorities when he gets in office and it seems strange he would do that if he doesn’t plan on it going into effect until 2020.
And even if this order is legally challengeable, what effect do you think its existence will have on hiring decisions being made by lobbying firms in the next two months?
Withdrawing from the TPP is a bad idea. It would be good for them to have more markets and good for us to have more cheap stuff.
Changing regulations about drilling is a good idea but it won’t matter much since gas is so cheap there is not much need for new sources of oil.
There are too many regulations and any attempt to prune down the number or regulations is a good idea.
I don’t see why the department of defense is doing this. It seems more like a job for the Department of Homeland Security.
With unemployment as low as it is, the American worker does not really need protection from immigrants.
Ethics reform seems like a good idea. I am not sure if this is workable but it does seem like it would cut down on people who are secretly working for their next employer while still having a government job.
Trump’s followers are already turning on him about not prosecuting Clinton, and he’s not even in office yet.
When they realize that he can’t deliver on most of his promises - and he won’t be able to - they’ll probably tear him limb from limb like a pack of wolves. There’s nothing so vicious as extreme right-wingers “betrayed”.
I can see a time coming when Trump will regret that he ever ran for president. Be careful what you wish for… and how many lies you tell to get it.
Any bets on how long Trump will last before he resigns or is impeached? I give him a maximum of two years.
This is a recipe for gridlock now for each needed regulation you try to pass you not only have to fight those who oppose the given regulation, but you also have to find two regulations to get rid of and fight with all those people who want to keep those two regulations, and also have to fight those people who wanted you to choose for elimination a different set of two regulations that they didn’t like.
The old “Any idea is better than no idea” fallacy-I never grow tired of it. He want to eliminate two regulations for every regulation proposed. How does this work in real life, again? Please give me an example.