jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (31 posts)

What do you think about Trump in the first week in office?

  1. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    It seems to me, amid all the protests, Trump has done things in the first week that Obama had not in 4 years or more...
    1. He bombed ISIS 31 time
    2. He freezed more regulations
    3. He issued order to build the XL pipeline
    4. He put Chicago on notice, he will send in the Feds to clean up the carnage there.
    5. He is starting to build the wall that was approved many years ago by Congress.
    6. He met with the Unions
    7. He went to the CIA as a first stop.
    8. He initiated the repeal of ACA
    9. He met with business leaders to bring jobs back to America
    10. He insisted English only at the whitehouse.gov site.

    As President Obama said "Elections have consequences..."
    A very good start in my opinion...
    What is your reaction? I truly liketo know.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I'm more than a little concerned about the gag orders he has put on several departments.  A blanket freeze on hiring is foolish; unless there is a procedure included to replace necessary help it needs modified.

      Other than that I have no real problems with his performance to date.  I will say, though that your #1 wasn't done by Trump, that neither #5 nor #8 has happened yet and #4 is just more rhetoric.

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, fair enough, but he did set the tone for his administration. His actions whether real or not at this first stage send out a message to all in DC and around the world.
        You point about hiring freeze is missguided. It happens everywhere in business. When an organization as large as the US government, with its million man workforce, cannot take a temporary freeze in hiring, that tells me something.
        In case you haven't been paying attention, we are 20 trillion in debt. The only way we can stop this bleeding is to cut spending. Yes, raising tax is also a possibility but we have been doing that. And guess what, it has not made a dent on spending.

        The Chicago situation is unique. You have a Democratic elected mayor who refuses to do anything about the crime and shootings in his city. Yet, he defies the Fed. Government by sticking to his sanctuary city policy...
        I am conflicted here. I am one for small government in general and look to local government as best to deal with local problems. However, in this case, do we just sit back and let it happen? Trump in his promise leading up to his election, said he would address this carnage that is going on. He is trying to help the inner city blacks and should be applauded for this. Yet he is branded a racist and...by the progressive left which by the way does not fly with the majority of the public who are 40% conservative, 30 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal...by some estimates.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Disagree about the hiring freeze.  A national park has a campground, always with a camp host that lives there in their own RV.  They leave but cannot be replaced; that campground no longer has a host and cannot hire one.  There has to be a method of hiring for those jobs that only have one or two people doing it.

          The question is what will Trump DO to fix the crime in Chicago?  Send in the army?  Hire a Trillion dollars worth of work to rebuild the slums?  I just don't see that there is much he can do at all, and that in turn means it's just political rhetoric.  Threats that he can't back up.

          It's fine to say that when locals don't fix their problems that the Feds will take over, but that's something our constitution in general forbids.

          1. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, that is the same "in the box" thinking that got us here. When the air traffic controllers want to strike, Reagan stood his ground and fired them. The supervisors pitched in and all went well. You are telling me there is no other person that can jump in to keep the camp ground open temporarily? I don't buy it.
            The freeze is only temporary. Thst is what any organization does when it want to assess changes.

            With regard to Chicago, I saw a program this morning and the judge, who is a guest host, said in his legal opinion, the Feds has certain jurisdiction in the cities. There are many things they can do to affect change. You have the same thinking as Mayor Dinkins of NYC. Nothing can be done so we have to live with it. Guess what, he was wrong. When mayor Guliani can into NYC, it was a mess. I remember because I live near the city. I traveled into the city on many occasions. In a few short years, with agressive policing, he cleaned up NYC. It was a benefit for all New Yorkers. That is just a few examples. I can give you more if you like.

            It is beginning to look like the real Jay Vee team was the Obama Administration. With each passing day, he is being exposed for the incompetent executive, all talk no action. Without stating it, everyone will see what a difference between night and day a real executive deal with problems.

            1. jackclee lm profile image78
              jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              I agree with you here. Our Congress was elected by the people. Our government works best when they debate issues and come up with bipartisan solutions that benefit everyone.
              That was what Reagan did when he was elected. He reached across the aisle and got bills passed that worked for the people.

              It cuts both ways. The opposition party has to meet him half way.

              The ACA was a prime example of the opposite. That is why it failed. It was passed with 0 Republican vote.
              We will see if this new Congress have better sense.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Again, I disagree.  They won't make any offers outside of typical party platforms (and neither with the R's - they are nearly as much opposition as D's).  It is up to Trump to make the invitations, to actually talk things through, to accept there are people with different ideas and truly consider them.

                Only then will the children in Congress have a chance of learning how to behave.  Without that guidance and example nothing will change.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              A camp host must own an RV to live in - they are on 24 hour duty.  And no, there is no one else - it is a one person (or more likely a married couple) operation.  Parks and Rec will have a couple of hands collecting garbage and grounds keeping, but there is only one host per campground.  Certainly there are relatively few jobs like that, but they really are out there - even the groundskeeper might be that way.  If it takes two people and one quits, then the job doesn't get done - you don't just transfer an office worker 100 miles away to drive over and pick up the trash each morning.

              But Guliana was not the federal government; he was local.  He might even have asked for help (I don't know), but if Chicago refuses it then the feds cannot do much.

              Disagree that Obama was all talk and no action (he was instrumental in creating the biggest give away program in the history of the world).  Unfortunately, his "action" was primarily to throw money at things, things that did nothing to solve the underlying problem.

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, for every one of the camp ground worker you cited, there are thousands of federal workers who's jobs are not unique. A temporary freeze will allow the new administration to better allocate resources where they are most needed. For example, I want the VA disbanded and replaced with a Medicare type system. That would be a very good start of draining the swamp...

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  "Wilderness, for every one of the camp ground worker you cited, there are thousands of federal workers who's jobs are not unique."

                  Absolutely correct.  I would put that campground host type of job at well under 1%.  But to the people needing that service it's pretty darn important and needs to covered, not just set aside and lumped into the general job category. 

                  A lot depends on just how "temporary" that freeze is, too.  If a few hundred people are inconvenienced it's one thing; if it goes on for months and tens of thousands suffer very real damage as a result that's quite another.  Under the freeze, for instance, we could cancel the VA (at least the health care part), but not include them in medicare - no one to handle the massive increase in paperwork.  There needs to be a way for extraordinary cases to bypass the freeze (and perhaps there is - I haven't seen the memo and don't know what the near future holds for it, either).

                  1. jackclee lm profile image78
                    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, I agree with you. How would you deal with the VA if you were the President?

        2. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

          A civilian hiring freeze, with an expanded military outlay? That does not sound like efficiency to me. This is just more right wing political theatre. Trump is nothing more than a tyrant, he does not have the authority to make regular federal employees submit to some sort of gag order designed to promote government in secret. It is more of the traditional conservative mantra fire federal employees, and replace them with contractors at a greater cost to the taxpayer. And don't tell me contractors are less expensive, this stuff was tried under Reagan only to be shelved because rather than money being saved, more was in fact spent. I know that as a former fed employee.

          Jacklee, you tell only half of the story what about the serious environmental concerns surrounding the Pipeline issue that conservatives so easily ignore.

          Your man, Trump, continues to fail every test and it has not been a week. Rest assured that I am coming after him with ' both barrels'.

          Trump, addressing carnage in Chicago? yeah, by allowing the police to act in excess without accountability, to violate Constitutional rights of residents. He is just a loud mouth cretin of whom I have no confidence. I am not from Missouri, but in any case I say "show me".

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            "This is just more right wing political theatre. "

            And that is just more left wing political theater.  With an understaffed military and an overstaffed civilian workforce it cannot be otherwise.

            Do you really think Trump can "allow" local police to violate the constitution?  Or act without accountability?  Perhaps you should study up on the powers of the office...  The combination of every house member, every senator AND the president couldn't do that.

            Without becoming a liberal, Trump cannot possibly survive any "test" you give him.  So yes, you will go after him with both barrels regardless of what he does or what the result is.

          2. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            You are being disingenuous when it comes to the xl pipeline. It was studied and environmentalist and State department signed off on it... there was no stones unturned. Obama delayed the decision on it till the very last moment knowing full well he would not support it. This is who he is. This pipeline would mean thousands of good paying jobs. It would offload the current rail and trucks that are serving the same function which by the way was why Warren Buffett is against it. He profits from the trucking and rail business carrying crude oil.
            You can check and look it up. Don't take my "right wing" ideas on face value. This pipeline was supported by 60% of the public in last poll.  Even Hillary Clinton supported it before she was against it...
            Please don't insult my intelligence. I will debate you issue by issue if you like. I will not get personal and stick to the facts. I have done so moe or less throughout my time here on HubPages. You can read what  I've published. I have never ben shy about what I believe and what I am - a Conservative.

            It breaks my heart on what our veterans have to deal with at the VA. They have sacrificed their life and limbs for this country and the best we can do is the VA. It is a disgrace.
            We as a nation, treat our poor and disabled better than our veterans. The current Medicaid system is an order of magnitude better than the VA hospitals...
            It should be the other way around. I have compassion for the poor and the diabled. However, thst does not mean we should put them above our veterans.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              "Furthermore, while the pipeline would create about 42,000 direct and indirect jobs during its two-year construction period, only 50 permanent jobs would remain after start of operations. Keystone would benefit the economy—but its impact would be too small for most Americans to notice"

              I trusted Obama instincts over anything a GOP had to say. This is an excerpt from a Scientific American article published in 2015. Perhaps Mr.  Obama saw any advantage as short lived relative to the risks.

              Since when have Republicans ever taken seriously the willof the majority in regards to any issue? This Trump fellow attained to office without such a majority.

              You are conservative and I am progressive and parrellel lines never intersect. We are always going to see the world from a different perspectives and it is mystery to me as to why. But, after so long on these forums, I have learned that that fact can't be helped.

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Credence2, it is response like that, that we will not get anything done in this country as in the past 8 years. Your confrontational attitude against GOP is one of the issues I have. They have been elected by the people. They hold a majority in Congress. What else should be done if they don't folllow the wishes of the people? I am not a fan of the GOP in the past. However, they have an equal part to play in legislation just as the Democrats have, though a majority has advantages. That was one reason the ACA passed with a majority of Democrats only.
                The pipleline is a prime example where the people wanted it, the environmental studies were done, the jobs are there to be made whether temporary or not, why did he reject it? He is a globalist who bought into the climate change argument against fossil fuel. He did this to coal and oil and off shore drilling. I am one that believe we have an energy problem in our country and it requires all forms of energy to fix including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind and any other sources that are economically competitive. I have studied climate change and you can read my hubs on it. It is not a primary concern for now. The dire projections made by Al Gore were wrong, 10 years ago and now. Before commenting on this, please do your own research on this. I am an engineer by training. I am telling you there is no consensus in science. It is either true or false or unknown. No consensus can be used to determine a complex system as climate.

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  My confrontational attitude regarding the GOP is well deserved.

                  The last eight years have been tainted with obstructionism, and then instead of listening to the concerns regarding this problem while it was happening, the Republicans say that we can all make nice now.

                  There will no reconciliation unless the GOP and Trump come to table with a spirit of compromise rather than coercion.

                  Yes, they have the majorities for now, but that can change in 2018. When the man in the. Street realizes that the swamp was drained of alligators and refilled with crocodiles, he will come to his senses to see that the objectives of the wealthy (for whom the GOP advocates so much) are very the antithesis of what is the best for the greatest number.

                  If defer to you as as engineer and scientist, but that doesnot make you right about everything. In my opinion, Conservatism as practiced in America as a philosophy, sucks.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image78
                    jackclee lmposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    credence, you have a perfect right to hold that opinion.
                    I'll check back with you in 4 years to see who was right.
                    If things turn out not as I expected, I will be happy to apologize and eat crow.
                    Will you be willing to do the same?

                    Peace brother.

                  2. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    The problem with the DNC is the problem of ageism. You have three of their major leaders in their 70's and they don't want to give up power. Nancy Polosi (76) has never had a legitimate contestant against her for the past 30 to 40 years, she comes out of a safe zone in San Fransico.  Steny Hoyer (77) is another problem. Ben Cardin (73) out of Maryland is another problem.
                    The problem resides within the Democratic party!

                    Either they clean it out or they reinvigorate it..if they don't as they say they won't, that is delusional. And, that is what happens when you think you are that important, which Nancy is not, neither are the three of them that important, but there is no contest.  For the most part they have alienated their constituents, so there is really no more Democratic party as far as we are concerned. The final coup for us and the counter coup was to get rid of the Democratic party and make them impotent and that was done.
                    If they push too far, we're going to cut the cancer out.

          3. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Here is link to XL pipeline -CNN hardly a right wing news org...
            http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/ … -pipeline/

      2. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Another question for you wilderness. If it wasn't trump who bombed ISIS, who was it? Of course you do realize when I say Trump, I don't mean literally. I mean his administration and his surrogates and his appointments... do you honesty think, Obama would have ordered those 31 strikes on ISIS? If he wanted, he could have done so 2 years ago. He didn't. why not?
        The same goes with the XL pipeline. He could have approved it 1 year ago... he chose not to despite 60% of Americans support it. Again why not? Wasn't he supose to work for us?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          If you MUST give credit, give it to the generals staff and pilots that did the actual work.  You will not convince me that Trump planned each of those missions, or even knew the details of someone else's planning.  At most he knew that plans were being made to carry them out. 

          There were a few strikes carried out in Obama's career too, you know.  And likely those specific strikes were done with his approval; although it can happen, and does, most sorties take more than a day or two to put into operation.

          Only if you limit the "us" to the American public.  If you are more honest and limit it to the loudest voices then he listened and responded. 

          (I don't think you would find, today, that 60% support the Dakota pipeline.  Those voices have been really loud, and that they haven't told the truth anywhere at all is not a factor to the public).

  2. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    Btw, wilderness, what would you like Trump to do in his first week? I truly want to know... what about these protesters, what do they want Trump to do? As an American, I want what is good for the country. I understand we are a diverse nation. What I want may conflict with what others want. But I am not an ideologue. I am open to any proposals that works including spending money that we don't have. The key is it has to show results. Our tax dollars have been spent and little to show for it. That is my problem with the Obama administration.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I have no clue what protesters want him to do, except resign the post.  I've searched for the causes behind the women's march, but it seems to be just anything and everything under the sun; every woman there seemed to have a different reason to protest.

      What I want for the first week?  I was truly surprised that he did anything at all: I expected at least a week of familiarization, settling in, etc.  I really hope that these orders are not just a flash in the pan, made to show he's a real President or some grandstanding act. 

      I guess high in the list would be inclusion of Democrats.  Maybe a talk (actually, many hours) with top party members from both sides on the ACA and other partisan issues.  Include both sides and do whatever he can to end this deadlock from partisanship.  It's way past time that our leaders learned to work together.

 
working