Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Trump was handed an ideal situation when he became President
A stable, thriving economy
No "hot" wars
A Republican Congress
What has there been that stands in the way of him accomplishing his agenda?
Yet, not only has he not delivered what he promised, he has made a paltry effort to get things done
In other instances, he has outright reversed his position
Not a grand start to a Presidency
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
How is it we can have people complaining about a wag gap between men and women if Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?Who can forget the signing of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? The penmanship! My God, what a master of writing one's name!Remember Obama's First 100 days? losing about 700,000 jobs a month (thanks to him!) and didnt the DOW crash to about 3000?
No the DOW crashed under W, and the job losses are W's as well. I love how conservatives take NO responsibility whatsover for W's total screw over of the US economy.
And now the OP is making excuses for the orange-faced clown's dismal first 100 days.
First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency - Wikipedia
In Obama's first 100 days, he passed and signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and his Stimulus Package was passed on January 29th, 2009 - showing that moment he was Inaugurated he was prepared with legislation that was ready to be implemented. He expanded the S-CHIP program to provide coverage for 4 million working families, and passed a budget resolution for the ACA.
Trump pulled out of TPP, and had his stolen SC nomination approved. The only thing Trump has done since taking office is cancel environmental and worker protections. And bomb and threaten other nations.
What a LOSER!
Trump was handed an ideal situation when he became President
A stable, thriving economy
No "hot" wars
A Republican Congress
What has there been that stands in the way of him accomplishing his agenda?
Yet, not only has he not delivered what he promised, he has made a paltry effort to get things done
In other instances, he has outright reversed his position
Not a grand start to a Presidency
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
Trump was handed an ideal situation when he became President
A stable, thriving economy
No "hot" wars
A Republican Congress
What has there been that stands in the way of him accomplishing his agenda?
Yet, not only has he not delivered what he promised, he has made a paltry effort to get things done
In other instances, he has outright reversed his position
Not a grand start to a Presidency
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
Trump was handed an ideal situation when he became President
A stable, thriving economy
No "hot" wars
A Republican Congress
What has there been that stands in the way of him accomplishing his agenda?
Yet, not only has he not delivered what he promised, he has made a paltry effort to get things done
In other instances, he has outright reversed his position
Not a grand start to a Presidency
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I am not familiar with the term "political violence"
What does it have to do with what I posted?
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
1. I dismiss your pretense of not being smart enough to understand the term, "political violence".
2. I'm just having trouble viewing yours comments of Trump's Administration as credible. I guess I am trying to get a feel from where your you are, right now, to get a better feel for how to judge how you present.
3. Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
I understand the term "violence"
By political violence do you mean lynching Republicans?
What in that I have posted about Trumps first 100 days is not true? And what does "political violence" have to do with it?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
It would take a very stupid person to think that the word "violence" only applies to "lynching".
I have already, and again dismiss your pretense of being that stupid. Please knock that shit off.
Do you support the use of political violence to suppress Republican speech?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
You made up the term
I asked what "political violence against Republicans" is
Is it lynching them or just voting against them?
You tell me
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
I just made it up?
That's funny, Wikipedia has a edit history on the term going back to 2011.
Political violence - Wikipedia
So, now that you can't pretend to not understand the term anymore, so do you support it's use to suppress Republican speech?
Also, you must be very insecure about your position here, if you are this determined to avoid giving any real answers to the simplest of questions.
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
Have you always been this big a whiner?
Guess what? You won
Trump is President and Republicans control the Congress and courts
So, why aren't you happy?
Why, under a perfect storm of Republican victory, can't Trump get anything done?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall? Why isn't Trump making them?
Why did Trump back down on NAFTA and sanctions against China?
Why isn't the budget being balanced?
Why wasn't Obamacare repealed on day one?
You guys control government...all we get to do is bitch about it on the internet
You still haven't defined the scope of political violence
Is it exterminating your enemies like Stalin or just calling them names on a message board?
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
Have you always been this big a whiner?
Guess what? You won
Trump is President and Republicans control the Congress and courts
So, why aren't you happy?
Why, under a perfect storm of Republican victory, can't Trump get anything done?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall? Why isn't Trump making them?
Why did Trump back down on NAFTA and sanctions against China?
Why isn't the budget being balanced?
Why wasn't Obamacare repealed on day one?
You guys control government...all we get to do is bitch about it on the internet
NOthing Trump is doing will more than slow the demographic shift and your ONe Party State based on violence and oppression.
Thus, your supposed concern about making Mexico pay for the Wall, is simply not credible. I know that you could not care less about the issue, in any fashion.
The oppression is slowly and inevitably rising to the level you have been dreaming of for quite some time, despite Trump, because demographics.
But, your prediction over passive acceptance by the whites is proving to be completely wrong.
Are you prepared to support an escalation in violence and oppression to put them in line?
Rhetorical Question, I know that that answer is yes, you've demonstrated that with your dodging of the issue.
Ok, so.
I've linked to the wikipedia article on the term and you are still playing stupid as a dodge to avoid answering the question.
In the past you have started threads on your dream of America, though demographic shift, turning into a One Party State where Middle America and/or whites will never again have a political voice.
I discussed my concerns for how that could go badly.
You dismissed my concerns and shared your assumption that whites would quietly accept their marginalization and oppression.
With the Right starting to defend itself against Leftist political violence, since the government won't protect them,
AND with the Left becoming more blatant with their support and use of political violence to censor and oppress their political enemies, ie Middle American, republicans, conservatives, whites, what have you,
we see that the actual course of events is moving more along my worst case scenario.
America as a society where the dominant political class is built on hate and oppression of the largest single ethnic group, which is constantly violently oppressed and rebelling, while government becomes completely non accountable and incompetent.
America as a shitty Third World country.
Against this backdrop, your stated interest in Trump's performance, is hard to credit as serious.
This is how Middle America is responding to your oppression.
Not quite what you claimed to believe would happen. Are you having any second thoughts yet?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
Have you always been this big a whiner?
Guess what? You won
Trump is President and Republicans control the Congress and courts
So, why aren't you happy?
Why, under a perfect storm of Republican victory, can't Trump get anything done?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall? Why isn't Trump making them?
Why did Trump back down on NAFTA and sanctions against China?
Why isn't the budget being balanced?
Why wasn't Obamacare repealed on day one?
You guys control government...all we get to do is bitch about it on the internet
NOthing Trump is doing will more than slow the demographic shift and your ONe Party State based on violence and oppression.
Thus, your supposed concern about making Mexico pay for the Wall, is simply not credible. I know that you could not care less about the issue, in any fashion.
The oppression is slowly and inevitably rising to the level you have been dreaming of for quite some time, despite Trump, because demographics.
But, your prediction over passive acceptance by the whites is proving to be completely wrong.
Are you prepared to support an escalation in violence and oppression to put them in line?
Rhetorical Question, I know that that answer is yes, you've demonstrated that with your dodging of the issue.
What does that have to do with Trump's first 100 days?
We already have laws against violence. Any violence, political or otherwise is already against the law.
At political rallies, tempers can flare. It happened at Trump rallies against protestors and it has happened against Trump supporters. Violence is still violence and should be prosecuted
I actually read the Wiki story you posted. It refers mostly to governments resorting to political violence against the opposition.
Which brings me back to my original question....WTF does that have to do with Trumps inability to get anything done in his first 100 days?
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
Have you always been this big a whiner?
Guess what? You won
Trump is President and Republicans control the Congress and courts
So, why aren't you happy?
Why, under a perfect storm of Republican victory, can't Trump get anything done?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall? Why isn't Trump making them?
Why did Trump back down on NAFTA and sanctions against China?
Why isn't the budget being balanced?
Why wasn't Obamacare repealed on day one?
You guys control government...all we get to do is bitch about it on the internet
NOthing Trump is doing will more than slow the demographic shift and your ONe Party State based on violence and oppression.
Thus, your supposed concern about making Mexico pay for the Wall, is simply not credible. I know that you could not care less about the issue, in any fashion.
The oppression is slowly and inevitably rising to the level you have been dreaming of for quite some time, despite Trump, because demographics.
But, your prediction over passive acceptance by the whites is proving to be completely wrong.
Are you prepared to support an escalation in violence and oppression to put them in line?
Rhetorical Question, I know that that answer is yes, you've demonstrated that with your dodging of the issue.
What does that have to do with Trump's first 100 days?
I've repeatedly answered that question.
It would valid of you to disagree with me, if you could support that disagreement.
But ignoring what I say and asking me questions I've already answered is the behavior of a dick.
Your pretense that you are unaware that lefty political leaders have been preventing cops from enforcing those laws is noted and dismissed.
I've explained why I asked and why I consider your answer by dodging to be relevant.
Now you are simply refusing to address my point.
Probably because you know that a honest discussion of the issue will bear out my fears about your support of political violence despite events following MY worst case scenario, and not your Utopia Rainbow and Unicorn vision.
You are willing to see this nation burn, if it means gaining political power.
Have you always been this big a whiner?
Guess what? You won
Trump is President and Republicans control the Congress and courts
So, why aren't you happy?
Why, under a perfect storm of Republican victory, can't Trump get anything done?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall? Why isn't Trump making them?
Why did Trump back down on NAFTA and sanctions against China?
Why isn't the budget being balanced?
Why wasn't Obamacare repealed on day one?
You guys control government...all we get to do is bitch about it on the internet
NOthing Trump is doing will more than slow the demographic shift and your ONe Party State based on violence and oppression.
Thus, your supposed concern about making Mexico pay for the Wall, is simply not credible. I know that you could not care less about the issue, in any fashion.
The oppression is slowly and inevitably rising to the level you have been dreaming of for quite some time, despite Trump, because demographics.
But, your prediction over passive acceptance by the whites is proving to be completely wrong.
Are you prepared to support an escalation in violence and oppression to put them in line?
Rhetorical Question, I know that that answer is yes, you've demonstrated that with your dodging of the issue.
What does that have to do with Trump's first 100 days?
I've repeatedly answered that question.
It would valid of you to disagree with me, if you could support that disagreement.
But ignoring what I say and asking me questions I've already answered is the behavior of a dick.
No...you repeatedly go into a rage about people killing Republicans
You guys are calling the shots....why can't you get anything done?
Pretty much dead on.
Everyone observing politics seems to agree on two things about a president’s first 100 days in office:
1. 100 days is a meaningless, arbitrary marker for a president’s performance that is likely to be more misleading than useful.
and…
2. Let’s treat it like it is important! Reeeeeeee!
The thing that fascinates me the most about this situation is that the so-called “pro-science” people are giving Trump low grades for his first 100 days.
Allow me to connect some dots.
In science, you don’t have much of an experiment unless you have a control case for comparison. For example, you can’t know if a drug helped with a particular disease unless you study the people who didn’t take the drug at the same time as those who did.
But the pro-science people forget this concept when thinking about politics. Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days?
Is it George Washington’s first 100 days?
Is it Jimmy Carter’s first 100 days?
And which prior president came to office in 2017 with identical problems and the most polarized political environment in history?
And just how long is it supposed to take to revise Obamacare? Do we compare it to the time Abe Lincoln repealed and replaced Obamacare? Or how about the time those other presidents repealed and replaced Obamacare in the year 2017?
I saw an article in Politico that is too dumb to link to, saying it is objectively true that Trump has had a bad first 100 days. This is a perfect example of what I call the “two movies on one screen effect.” I’m almost certain that many Trump supporters would say these facts are objectively true too:
Economic confidence is up.
Trump signed a bunch of executive orders. You might not like them, but that’s more about you, not about his job performance.
China is putting the screws on North Korea (finally)
Trump erased the “puppet of Putin” charge by prudent application of Tomahawk missiles. That’s an accomplishment, even if you don’t like it.
Trump erased the “Trump is Hitler” hallucination that the Clinton side spray-painted onto him during the election. (That’s a big deal.)
Trump got a qualified Supreme Court judge, albeit the hard way.
Healthcare is moving along briskly from the first plan that was terrible to something that is approaching feasible. That’s progress, not failure.
Tax reform will probably be slower than we want, but most observers expect something good to come of it.
International relations look fine. The only awkward relationship is with Putin, and that’s the awkward relationship Trump’s detractors want.
Illegal immigration is way down because of Trump’s persuasion.
Now let’s look at the things President Trump did wrong in his first 100 days:
You can criticize Trump’s actions against women’s reproductive rights, both on the topic of Planned Parenthood funding and his Supreme Court pick. But calling those things failures or successes depends on your political views, not on Trump’s job performance.
I think you could make an objective case against Trump for putting economics above the environment. But you’d have to ignore the fact that a stronger economy almost always puts you in a better position to keep the environment clean. (Trump says that.) You don’t see clean air and water in poor countries.
President Trump reversed a bunch of campaign statements from impractical positions to more practical ones. Is that failure?
President Trump said a bunch of things that did not pass the fact-checking, surprising literally no one. And as usual, none of it mattered in any way except that it made us focus on whatever topic he wanted us to focus on.
President Trump’s staff and advisors are reportedly doing a lot of in-fighting for influence. But that sounds more like a healthy situation than a Trump-is-dictator situation. It would be worse if there were no differences of opinion in the group.
President Trump has been slow to fill lots of government positions. But has any of that mattered to your life? I haven’t noticed, personally. Was the Secretary of Whatever supposed to come over and mow my lawn?
President Trump did not release his tax returns, so we imagine there are problems there.
President Trump incorrectly claimed that his staff had been “wiretapped.” It turns out that they were only legally surveilled in an indirect way. Which only sounds different to his critics.
Generally speaking, the criticisms of President Trump’s first 100 days (and in general) are based on imaginary stuff:
Imagined problems on his tax returns.
Imagined blackmail by Russia.
Imagined poor performance based on imagining a control case of another imaginary president doing the same job at the same time, but doing it faster.
Imaginary belief that doing things you prefer he not do is similar to not being competent.
Imagined staff problems that are bigger than they are.
Imagined nuclear holocaust that happens because of Trump’s imaginary insanity.
Imagined problems caused by his ignoring of facts that don’t matter.
Imagined future climate calamity. (They could be right, but for now it is imaginary because complex models have a bad track record.)
Scott Adams' Blog100 days is a meaningless, arbitrary marker for a president’s performance that is likely to more misleading than useful.
However so that may or may not be, it's clearly not what Trump thought about it...That is until his 100 day mark neared and it became obvious to him that very little of note in his "100 Day Contract with the American Voter" would be accomplished. Indeed, Trump specifically asserted, "On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
So, to the if one construes the notion of the "100 days" as a bar for marking presidential achievement, one can just add it to the list things done and said by Trump that are, as "Dilbert" puts it, "meaningless, arbitrary" and "more misleading than useful."
BTW, one'll recall that contracts are binding only on the people who sign them. Trump clearly signed his "Contract with the American Voter."
Most of what he claims to have done is a lie. He says he cut funding to sanctuary cities and he hasn't. He signed an unconstitutional EO which is being blocked in the courts. He claims to have defunded PP but he didn't. He signed an EO allowing states to defund PP. the two that tried to defund PP were sued and lost their law suits.
He signed an EO to build the wall and that was unconstitutional. He needs an appropriation to build the wall and Congress denied the request.
All Trump has done is demonstrate his complete ignorance on how government functions and what he can and cannot do as President without asking Congress first.
