Thread In Which We Discuss Trump Admin Policy & Give Trump Props

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 295
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
Are we allowed to fact-check claims of good stuff. Because he fell well short of actually recognizing the Lumbees. The White House memo describes the EO as follows:
  • It directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to assist the Lumbee Tribe in obtaining full federal recognition through legislation or other available mechanisms, including the right to receive full federal benefits.
Click to expand...

Many of the executive orders so far are like that… very strongly worded but with few specifics. Whoever writes them does a good job of mimicking his style in that regard.

The EO regarding the declassification of the assassination documents is similar. The only requirements are for the Director of National Intelligence to “present a plan” for the release of the records.
 
I spent a minute rolling through the Guardian's very helpful running tally --

www.theguardian.com

All the executive orders Trump has signed so far

The president has signed orders to pardon January 6 rioters, scrap DEI policies and end ‘gender radicalism’ in military
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I couldn't care less about the MLK and JFK files, so I guess I'm fine with that EO. Otherwise, I see nothing commendable at all about a single one of Trump's EOs to date. They range from relatively benign to absurdly and obviously illegal, but none seem to me like something a neutral observer would give him credit for.

I don't have a huge problem with the Laken Riley Act, so I guess I'm fine with Trump signing it, even if it was Congress's initiative. Parts of it seem like they'll be terribly counterproductive for Trump and future administrations, but whatever.
 
This thread has the possibility of fostering reasonable discussions regarding policy if conservative posters decide to participate.
 
nycfan said:
Inflation in December ticked up. No fair way to hang that on Trump.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure that's true. His election could well have triggered the events that led to the rise. I wouldn't push the idea that Trump is to blame but it's too early to give him a free pass.

He killed the immigration bill well before he was elected and everybody knows it. If he could do that, he could well have influenced the economy after the certainty of him taking office.
 
finesse said:
Not quite sure that's true. His election could well have triggered the events that led to the rise. I wouldn't push the idea that Trump is to blame but it's too early to give him a free pass.

He killed the immigration bill well before he was elected and everybody knows it. If he could do that, he could well have influenced the economy after the certainty of him taking office.
Click to expand...
I think there's also been a little pre-price raising in anticipation of new tariffs. But I don't think we have enough data to quantify that yet, so in the spirit of magnanimity we're trying to bring to this thread, I won't assign blame for that dynamic yet.
 
Responding to the OP:

1. Like most Republicans, I applaud most of the pardons for the peaceful J6ers and the pro life protestors. I believe pardoning the violent protestors who attacked police officers was a mistake. It appears Trump grew impatient in looking at the cases on an individual basis.

2. I agree with Trump's larger point that we need to remove DEI from the hiring of traffic controllers. An investigation will likely determine that for years the FAA has resisted hiring white controllers in order to promote DEI. We need to get to the bottom of why we are woefully short of qualified traffic controllers. This is a life and death issue. I strongly disagree with the President in bringing up this issue in the initial press conference.

3. I'm opposed to tariffs and believe all countries benefit from free trade. On the other hand, Trump is correct in that other countries impose tariffs on the US protecting foreign interests. I don't mind if he uses the threat of tariffs as a leverage for better deals or temporarily impose tariffs on other nations for the same reason. I oppose permanent, long term tariffs as i will damage the economy.

4. I disagree with the statement that Trump panders to Putin. While he speaks favorably of Putin on occasion, in practice he's been rather tough on Russia. It remains to be seen if he can broker a peace plan in Ukraine with his negotiating style but I'm willing to give him some space to do so. He is tough on our European allies in his never ending goal of forcing them to contribute more to NATO and to provide a greater share of the aid to Ukraine for their own defense. I don't care if he hurts their feelings employing a bit of "tough love" on them. No Western European country is going to going to break from being an ally of the US and we're never going to withdraw from NATO.
 
ZenMode said:
In all honesty, those people are lucky. I know off multiple companies that are requiring at least partial return to work and they aren't offering crap if the employee doesn't want to return.

If my employer offered me 8 months pay to quit, I'd have a hard time not taking it.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is conflicting info on whether that is actually the offer.
 
nycfan said:
Inflation in December ticked up. No fair way to hang that on Trump.
Click to expand...
I agree. But MAGA blamed inflation on Biden so that’s the way I’ll play it for the next four years.
But I can retract and wait until April when we see inflation is up in the 1Q.
 
ZenMode said:
In all honesty, those people are lucky. I know off multiple companies that are requiring at least partial return to work and they aren't offering crap if the employee doesn't want to return.

If my employer offered me 8 months pay to quit, I'd have a hard time not taking it.
Click to expand...
Companies have the authority to pay severance. Elon Musk does not.
 
Is this a Trump Policy or a Musk one? Who is in charge? From the Washington Post:

Senior U.S. official to exit after rift with Musk allies over payment system​

A top Treasury career staffer is expected to depart. Surrogates of Musk’s DOGE effort had sought access to sensitive payment systems.

The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks.

David A. Lebryk, who served in nonpolitical roles at Treasury for several decades, is expected to leave the agency soon, the people said. President Donald Trump named Lebryk as acting secretary upon taking office last week. Lebryk had a dispute with Musk’s surrogates over access to the payment system the U.S. government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year, the people said. The exact nature of the disagreement was not immediately clear, they said.

Officials affiliated with Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” have been asking since after the election for access to the system, the people said — requests that were reiterated more recently, including after Trump’s inauguration.
Still, the possibility that government officials might try to use the federal payments system — which essentially functions as the nation’s “checking book” — to enact a political agenda is unprecedented, said Mark Mazur, who served in senior treasury roles during the Obama and Biden administrations.

“This is a mechanical job — they pay Social Security benefits, they pay vendors, whatever. It’s not one where there’s a role for nonmechanical things, at least from the career standpoint. Your whole job is to pay the bills as they’re due,” Mazur said. “It’s never been used in a way to execute a partisan agenda. … You have to really put bad intentions in place for that to be the case.”
In the 2023 fiscal year, the payment systems processed nearly 1.3 billion payments, accounting for about $5.4 trillion, nearly 97 percent made electronically, according to the Treasury Department. Every payment was made on time.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com
 
Ramrouser said:
Responding to the OP:

1. Like most Republicans, I applaud most of the pardons for the peaceful J6ers and the pro life protestors. I believe pardoning the violent protestors who attacked police officers was a mistake. It appears Trump grew impatient in looking at the cases on an individual basis.

2. I agree with Trump's larger point that we need to remove DEI from the hiring of traffic controllers. An investigation will likely determine that for years the FAA has resisted hiring white controllers in order to promote DEI. We need to get to the bottom of why we are woefully short of qualified traffic controllers. This is a life and death issue. I strongly disagree with the President in bringing up this issue in the initial press conference.

3. I'm opposed to tariffs and believe all countries benefit from free trade. On the other hand, Trump is correct in that other countries impose tariffs on the US protecting foreign interests. I don't mind if he uses the threat of tariffs as a leverage for better deals or temporarily impose tariffs on other nations for the same reason. I oppose permanent, long term tariffs as i will damage the economy.

4. I disagree with the statement that Trump panders to Putin. While he speaks favorably of Putin on occasion, in practice he's been rather tough on Russia. It remains to be seen if he can broker a peace plan in Ukraine with his negotiating style but I'm willing to give him some space to do so. He is tough on our European allies in his never ending goal of forcing them to contribute more to NATO and to provide a greater share of the aid to Ukraine for their own defense. I don't care if he hurts their feelings employing a bit of "tough love" on them. No Western European country is going to going to break from being an ally of the US and we're never going to withdraw from NATO.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the response and the thoughtful points of rebuttal, @Ramrouser. Here are my thoughts:

1. I don't necessarily disagree with the pardons of the non-violent J6ers. Candidly I don't know enough about them on a case-by-case basis, but on the surface I can understand the viewpoint that the non-violent prisoners had served due time. I agree with you that pardoning the violent criminals was a major mistake, and hopefully it will be a political albatross for Trump. I think anyone who assaults law enforcement officers should be put under the jail.

2. I can understand this point in principle as I'd generally think that any organization- especially one as critical as the FAA's ATC's- should always hire on the basis of merit, qualification, and experience and never on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. But I highly doubt there is any proof that that *wasn't* done. I assume that the FAA didn't alter its hiring practices from 2008-2012, suddenly reverse them from 2016-2020, revert them back from 2020-2024, and now once again revert to the hiring practices of 2016-2020. In other words, they're hiring the exact same people they've always hired with the same emphasis on skill and experience. The problem is that there has been a decades-long shortage of ATC's, and the ones that are there are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. That's the likely culprit, IMO- not "DEI" or "wokeness." And anyway, it doesn't even seem like this tragic accident was the fault of the FAA or ATC's- it appears to have been simple human error on the part of the military helicopter pilot. Tragic, but humans do err. Until this week, we haven't had an aviation fatality since 2009, and the only reason we had one this week was due to, again, human error on the part of a military craft. Was the FAA "too woke" when it had a 100% rate of keeping hundreds of millions of airline passengers and crew safe between 2009-2025, spanning multiple presidential administrations both Republican and Democrat?

3. Agree on the opposition to tariffs. Agree on the principle of free trade. Disagree that Trump's tactic of using tariffs as a negotiating tactic is effective.

4. Fair points. I disagree that Trump doesn't pander to Putin (or Xi or Kim-Jong Un) but I can see it from your point of view and perspective, too. I disagree with treating our allies with hostility, whether feigned or sincere. I come from the Reagan school of talking and acting tough to Russia, not to our democratic friends and partners.
 
3. Trump tariff “negotiating tactic” has already been proven to be bad for Americans as we pay more in mortgage interest than we should be doing.

There are no benefits of it yet that anyone can point to.

This “negotiating tactic” is a big fat L until it produces positive results (it won’t) that outweigh the negatives.
 
mpaer said:
Were there literally ANY J-6 protestors convicted that were peaceful??
Click to expand...
Yes.

The most famous of which, at least on the far right, Ray Epps, was convicted despite never actually entering the Capitol or crossing the police barriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top