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

[danielpalos]

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

It is about the "agenda and tone" the administration is setting.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

It's going to take at least 12 years to undo the damage done by the Muslim.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

It is about the "agenda and tone" the administration is setting.

So?

 

[danielpalos]

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

It is about the "agenda and tone" the administration is setting.

So?

nothing but social plans instead of the fine capital plans any one percenter, should have, by "default"?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

It is about the "agenda and tone" the administration is setting.

So?

nothing but social plans instead of the fine capital plans any one percenter, should have, by "default"?

Donald Trump’s Top 10 Accomplishments in His First Month in Office

 

[usmbguest5318]

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" 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."

All but two accomplished.

All but two accomplished.

You just keep thinking and saying that.....

 

[Weatherman2020]

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" 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."

All but two accomplished.

All but two accomplished.

You just keep thinking and saying that.....

Keep insisting Trump does nothing - while you snowflakes continue to freak out

 

[IResist]

Imagine Trump drastically cutting the top tax brackets while also increase a bloated defense budget even more, then cutting healthcare funds and benefits and then getting us into war on top of it.

I fear such a reality.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Imagine Trump drastically cutting the top tax brackets while also increase a bloated defense budget even more, then cutting healthcare funds and benefits and then getting us into war on top of it.

I fear such a reality.

Imagine Trump starting wars with two nations that posed no threat to America - like Obama did.

 

[Dragonlady]

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!

Economy always crashes under a Democrat Congress, always prospers under a Republican Congress. Always.

Links or it is just, right wing fantasy.

I have to teach you how to use google too?

obviously

--LOL

The stock market crash doesn't happen the moment taxes are cut. It happens years later. Reagan's crash was 7 years after the tax cuts - and yes there was a Democrat Congress - elected because of out of control deficit spending, and a high unemployment rate, not to mention that Reagan had doubled the number of people on food stamps, even though he had tightened eligability requirements.

There is no way you can blame anyone but W for the mess he left. Tax cuts were 5 years before the crash, but he also lowered interest rates on mortgages in an effort to push home ownership, creating a ticking time bomb. Once the interest rates came up for renewal, they went up substantially and people walked away from the homes they could no longer afford payments on. Since they had no money down, they had nothing to lose. Good times.

 

[rightwinger]

Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days

How about we use Trumps own promises of what he would accomplish in the first 100 days?





.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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!

Economy always crashes under a Democrat Congress, always prospers under a Republican Congress. Always.

Links or it is just, right wing fantasy.

I have to teach you how to use google too?

obviously

--LOL

The stock market crash doesn't happen the moment taxes are cut. It happens years later. Reagan's crash was 7 years after the tax cuts - and yes there was a Democrat Congress - elected because of out of control deficit spending, and a high unemployment rate, not to mention that Reagan had doubled the number of people on food stamps, even though he had tightened eligability requirements.

There is no way you can blame anyone but W for the mess he left. Tax cuts were 5 years before the crash, but he also lowered interest rates on mortgages in an effort to push home ownership, creating a ticking time bomb. Once the interest rates came up for renewal, they went up substantially and people walked away from the homes they could no longer afford payments on. Since they had no money down, they had nothing to lose. Good times.

Reagan saw a million jobs gained in a month..... people don't vote Democrat because they don't like people on food stamps.... home interest rates were 22% when Reagan took office, 9% when he left.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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" 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."

All but two accomplished.

All but two accomplished.

You just keep thinking and saying that.....

Keep insisting Trump does nothing - while you snowflakes continue to freak out

Keep insisting Trump does nothing

I am well aware that Trump has done things. I'm equally aware of the meager-at-best progress he's made toward achieving the things he attested/committed to accomplishing in his first 100 days.

Nobody held that man under duress in order to get him to issue his "100 Day Contract with the American Voter." That was "all Trump." If the nation cannot and should not hold Trump accountable to the standards he, in "black and white," defined for himself and communicated to the world, then what the man says must mostly be construed as entertainment and/or fiction.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days

How about we use Trumps own promises of what he would accomplish in the first 100 days?

Sure has you snowflakes foaming at the mouth.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump's 100 days could be described as Democrats running around with their fingers in their ears yelling "neener neener neener,"

Or it could be described as a failure to repeal and replace Obamacare
A failure to ban Muslims
A failure to jail Hillary
A failure to cut taxes
A failure to "Drain the swamp"
A failure to have Mexico pay for the wall

Neener, neener, neener....Trump is such a weiner

 

[rightwinger]

Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days

How about we use Trumps own promises of what he would accomplish in the first 100 days?

Sure has you snowflakes foaming at the mouth.

Should have his supporters foaming at the mouth, liberals like that he is a failure.........Suckers

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump's 100 days could be described as Democrats running around with their fingers in their ears yelling "neener neener neener,"

Or it could be described as a failure to repeal and replace Obamacare
A failure to ban Muslims
A failure to jail Hillary
A failure to cut taxes
A failure to "Drain the swamp"

Neener, neener, neener....Trump is such a weiner

A failure to cut taxes

In all fairness, that particular failure results from his not even attempting to make it happen within the time period to which he committed to doing so. Once again, we see that Trump's word cannot be relied upon, not even minimally.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Obama's first 100 days in a nut shell,,,,,,"Ahhh,,,,Errrr,,,,Ughh,,,Hmm,,,Bush,,uhm,,and ahhh,,,The Economy Is Already Recovering, ahh,,,just ask Joe Biden".....uhhhh.

 

[rightwinger]

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" 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."

All but two accomplished.

All but two accomplished.

You just keep thinking and saying that.....

Keep insisting Trump does nothing - while you snowflakes continue to freak out

Keep insisting Trump does nothing

I am well aware that Trump has done things. I'm equally aware of the meager-at-best progress he's made toward achieving the things he attested/committed to accomplishing in his first 100 days.

Nobody held that man under duress in order to get him to issue his "100 Day Contract with the American Voter." That was "all Trump." If the nation cannot and should not hold Trump accountable to the standards he, in "black and white," defined for himself and communicated to the world, then what the man says must mostly be construed as entertainment and/or fiction.

It is not just that Trump has failed to accomplish what he promised in the first 100 days....but that he has made so little effort

Passing legislation takes more than tweeting about it. You need to build coalitions, make compromises, arrange for funding. It takes hard work
Trump is too consumed about arranging his weekend golf date

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you need to have someone shove his comments in your face, as to what he would do on day one.
Selective memory again by a teabagger.

Hell,it takes longer than three months to get settled in a new house.
And you morons seem to think this country's ills can be repaired in the same amount of time?

Maybe if your moronic activist judges stopped blocking him at every turn when they know damn good and well that their shit wont stand up in a real court of law.

Lmao!!! Yeah it won't stand up in real court. Who turned it down? A REAL COURT!!

You sound like Trump after his travel ban got denied in court yelling "SEE YOU IN COURT".