Presidential First 90 Days Thread

[Devildoc]

What I don't want to see is any bullshit legislation or even discussion around social issues; ie gay marriage, drug legalization, etc.

I am as conservative as they come, but spot on. They (Republicans) need to move on. If he can fix taxes, infrastructure, these other issues, and the things that matter to everyone, he can be successful.

 

[Blizzard]

This is a good point that I hadn't considered. Palin could conceivably do well in a non-public cabinet position. I'd prefer a conservationist, but as the former governor of a state like Alaska, she might just be fit for the Interior position. Agree on Gingrich for CoS as well.

My view is that he'd be better off moving away from "establishment" personnel in high profile/high visibility roles.

I'll also walk back my comment on social issues one step. The only acceptable action I'd like to see is a statement from that the government is now out of the marriage business; that it's now entirely a religious issue and the government doesn't give a shit whether you're married. It then kills that discussion and simply becomes an individual tax issue where martial status is not a factor.

 

[BloodStripe]

I hope he takes government out of marriage in his first 90 days.

 

[TLDR20]

I hope he takes government out of marriage in his first 90 days.

My view is that he'd be better off moving away from "establishment" personnel in high profile/high visibility roles.

I'll also walk back my comment on social issues one step. The only acceptable action I'd like to see is a statement from that the government is now out of the marriage business; that it's now entirely a religious issue and the government doesn't give a shit whether you're married. It then kills that discussion and simply becomes an individual tax issue where martial status is not a factor.

So would he take tax privileges for marriage out of the equation as well? Would only those with religiously approved marriages be eligible for tax breaks? What about people who aren't religious? Can they not get married? Do you not see the holes in your own position?

 

[Brill]

Not necessarily a Trump administration request but a Congressional one, I'd like to see Congress pass a law banning Executive Orders and for Trump to sign it. Doing so gets us back closer to the spirit of the Constitution and may help remove some of the jackassery in DC. However, doing so would require a spine and I'm not sure we're there yet.

I'd also like to see the start of an IRS and federal tax overhaul as well as the beginnings of repeal/rework of the abomination known as Obamacare.

Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.

Very much agree on draining the swamp at the IRS to the extent of really looking at Lerner and whether she broke the law. All onboard on fixing Obamacare: costs, to individuals and collective tax payers, are way too high.

 

[DC]

REMOVE ISIS/DAESH AND ITS ILK FROM THIS PLANET THEN:

1. R/R Obamacare
2. Trash TPP
3. R/R NAFTA to include building of a "wall"(detection technology, CCTV, ETC.) AND Mexico pitching in financially or NAFTA terminated
4. Bipartisianship throughout the government
5. Tax reform for businesses to function and return to the US
6. Tax reform and re write IRS tax codes

 

[TLDR20]

Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.

Very much agree on draining the swamp at the IRS to the extent of really looking at Lerner and whether she broke the law. All onboard on fixing Obamacare: costs, to individuals and collective tax payers, are way too high.

Fixing vs repealing are different, I would like to see it fixed without removing many of the new protections afforded. I'd prefer to keep the people under insurance insured, pre-existing conditions covered, keeping the age under parents to 26. Of course I'd like it to be cheaper, I would like healthcare costs to be cheaper as well.

 

[Blizzard]

So would he take tax privileges for marriage out of the equation as well? Would only those with religiously approved marriages be eligible for tax breaks? What about people who aren't religious? Can they not get married? Do you not see the holes in your own position?

Yes, we tax individuals, not martial statuses. The government gets out of the business entirely. Why should the government care if someone is married or not? The only reason to do is for tax purposes.

 

[TLDR20]

I'd also like to point out, once more, manufacturing isn't coming back to America. It has never left, it has just been automated to a point that factories run with hundreds of employees rather than thousands.

I'd like to see Trump encourage people from manufacturing to explore options in emerging service industries...

 

[Brill]

Fixing vs repealing are different, I would like to see it fixed without removing many of the new protections afforded. I'd prefer to keep the people under insurance insured, pre-existing conditions covered, keeping the age under parents to 26. Of course I'd like it to be cheaper, I would like healthcare costs to be cheaper as well.

That honestly would be a great way to bring both Clinton and Sanders camps together. I'll go further: fine the shit out of CGI and make that org pay for it! Republicans would back that too!

In 140 characters, I just solved domestic policy and united a fractured country.

 

[TLDR20]

Yes, we tax individuals, not martial statuses. The government gets out of the business entirely. Why should they care if someone is married or not? The only reason they do is for tax purposes.

Ok, so marriage is only a religious thing? Weird, for me and many other atheist types that are married. It is also strange that marriage co-dates or even pre-dates the Judeo- Christian belief system. But yeah totally a religious thing.

 

[Brill]

I'd also like to point out, once more, manufacturing isn't coming back to America. It has never left, it has just been automated to a point that factories run with hundreds of employees rather than thousands.

I'd like to see Trump encourage people from manufacturing to explore options in emerging service industries...

Ford did that very thing.

Ford to move all small-car production to Mexico from US

 

[Gunz]

I could see Palin at Interior, theoretically. From being governor of Alaska I think she would have a pretty good read on that, she understands how the states and NPS/Interior collaborate. I do not get warm fuzzies on Gingrich for SoS, but I could see Giuliani for AG. I COULD see Gingrich for Chief of Staff. I think Trump's picks for cabinet and SCOTUS are extraordinarily important, and if he could appoint some good and knowledgeable SMEs that are democrats that would go a long way in assuaging some fears.

Agree, especially about Giuliani. He was an amazing US Attorney for Southern NY, led the charge in the successful prosecution of Mafia leaders and as Mayor of NYC is credited with significantly lowering the crime rate.

 

[TLDR20]

Ford did that very thing.

Ford to move all small-car production to Mexico from US

America leads the world in value of manufactured goods. America is projected to lead the world in total products manufactured by 2020.

At worst we were number 2 in the world by.5 percent? Automation hurts jobs as much as globalization.

 

[Brill]

America is projected to lead the world in total products manufactured by 2020.

Pffft...Trump's China policy will advance that shit but 24 months!

You REALLY have no idea how much it pisses me off when you're right.

The Facts About Modern Manufacturing | MAPI

 

[RackMaster]

Anyone want to get in on the ground floor and help Make America Great Again?

Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointees

 

[Blizzard]

Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.

SCOTUS has already weighed in on them numerous times; almost always taking the side that allows them to stand.

The fact is that "the privilege" (more on that below) of EOs are now so overly used they've reached the point of abuse; and it's abuse well pre-dates our current President.

A little historical reference:
George Washington EO's

And check this chart out:
Here's every presidential executive order going back to George Washington

My view is that EO's generally stand in the face of the spirit of the Constitution.

Further, despite SCOTUS rulings upholding their use, there is nothing specifically in the Constitution that grants this privilege. Article II, Section I states , "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..." But, in my view, that's a step back from allowing EO's in the way we see them today. It's somewhat ambiguous as to what that actually does mean, especially in the context of the sentences that follow.

This viewpoint probably makes me some sort of crack pot but, oh well, I can live with that.

 

[Brill]

SCOTUS has already weighed in on them numerous times; usually taking the side that allows them to stand.

The fact is that "the privilege" (more on that below) of EOs has become very abused; and it's abuse well pre-dates our current President.

My view is that they stand in the face of the spirit of the Constitution. Further, despite SCOTUS rulings upholding their use, there is nothing specifically in the Constitution that grants this privilege. Article II, Section I states , "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..." But, in my view, that's a step back from allowing EO's in the way we see them today. It's somewhat ambiguous as to what that actually does mean, especially in the context of the sentences that follow.

This view probably makes me some sort of crack pot but oh well.

I think your view makes you out to be informed.

I agree that when EOs affect citizens, they (for me) generally cross the line into lawmaking reserved for Congress and the states but the Presidents need the ability to run/manage their branch effectively without a need to negotiate with Congress for everything. I like the EOs for DOD and other agencies but when he steps over to immigration, labor practices, land grabs, his Solicitor General should be standing before the Court explaining why the President is acting like a king. An additional check, is the general election which recently CLEARLY demonstrated President Obama has deviated from the comfort zone of Joe Sixpack.

Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects

 

[DC]

Made in USA assembled in Mexico is a common tag line for Ford, Chrysler and GM. My GMC allegedly was assembled in Indiana per the body tag. My Dodge(POS) was assembled in Mexico.

Aerospace on the other hand is the opposite. Parts and assemblies are manufactured and/or assembled OCONUS. Back in the day it was all done here.

 

[Brill]

Symbolic of recent events?

Eagle rescued after being stuck in storm drain in Orange County