President Trump’s First 100 Days by Scott 'Dilbert' Adams

[danielpalos]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

 

[danielpalos]

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' Blog

100 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."

Nothing but social plans instead of the fine capital plans, he should have.

 

[Correll]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

If you have any concern for civil rights then you need to educate yourself on the current actions of the LEft with regard to suppressing speech.

You should watch some of Milo's Dangerous Faggot Tour, entertaining, and educational, especially for you because of the constant attempts by lefty street thugs and lefty campus administrations trying and often succeeding in shutting down Free Speech.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Our President seems to no longer even know if it is a lie anymore. If it supports his position, he will just spout out any "alternative fact" that pops into his head.
He does not know and does not care that it can be easily refuted

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

If you have any concern for civil rights then you need to educate yourself on the current actions of the LEft with regard to suppressing speech.

You should watch some of Milo's Dangerous Faggot Tour, entertaining, and educational, especially for you because of the constant attempts by lefty street thugs and lefty campus administrations trying and often succeeding in shutting down Free Speech.

the right wing is all talk and no action regarding abolishing our drug war.

 

[Correll]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

If you have any concern for civil rights then you need to educate yourself on the current actions of the LEft with regard to suppressing speech.

You should watch some of Milo's Dangerous Faggot Tour, entertaining, and educational, especially for you because of the constant attempts by lefty street thugs and lefty campus administrations trying and often succeeding in shutting down Free Speech.

the right wing is all talk and no action regarding abolishing our drug war.

As is the Left Wing.

My point regarding Free Speech and the LEfty thugs. If you really care at all about that issue, then you need to watch some of MIlo's Dangerous Faggot Tour.


Here's one where BLM storms the stage and campus security allows them to shut down Milo's speech.

THis is not a protest, this is censorship.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

If you have any concern for civil rights then you need to educate yourself on the current actions of the LEft with regard to suppressing speech.

You should watch some of Milo's Dangerous Faggot Tour, entertaining, and educational, especially for you because of the constant attempts by lefty street thugs and lefty campus administrations trying and often succeeding in shutting down Free Speech.

the right wing is all talk and no action regarding abolishing our drug war.

As is the Left Wing.

My point regarding Free Speech and the LEfty thugs. If you really care at all about that issue, then you need to watch some of MIlo's Dangerous Faggot Tour.


Here's one where BLM storms the stage and campus security allows them to shut down Milo's speech.

THis is not a protest, this is censorship.

Poor snowflake

Welcome to Trumps America.....civility is for pussies

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is the right wing that has no problem "trampling civil rights", for their socialism on a national basis.

If you have any concern for civil rights then you need to educate yourself on the current actions of the LEft with regard to suppressing speech.

You should watch some of Milo's Dangerous Faggot Tour, entertaining, and educational, especially for you because of the constant attempts by lefty street thugs and lefty campus administrations trying and often succeeding in shutting down Free Speech.

the right wing is all talk and no action regarding abolishing our drug war.

As is the Left Wing.

My point regarding Free Speech and the LEfty thugs. If you really care at all about that issue, then you need to watch some of MIlo's Dangerous Faggot Tour.


Here's one where BLM storms the stage and campus security allows them to shut down Milo's speech.

THis is not a protest, this is censorship.

Marijuana is being legalized in liberal States.

The right wing is still, all talk and still, no action regarding our extra-constitutional and extra-expensive, War on Drugs.