Det här är ett typexempel på passivt köpande av Vita husets felstavade pressreleaser. Du skämmer ut dig genom sån här nonsens.
Citat:
Keystone Pipeline
Dakota Pipeline
Dakota Pipeline
Trump bygger inga pipelines fattar du väl ditt pulver. Däremot har han satt igång en process som stoppades av Obama. Dessutom missar du hur utpräglat värdelösa dessa pipelines nu är, eftersom de kunder/leverantörer som hade för avsikt att nyttja rören sedan länge övergivit idén för annan infrastruktur. Ingen sitter för fan och väntar i sex år på en pipeline i frysboxen. Dessutom är det arméns ingenjörer som bygger rören - en helt annan entitet.
Citat:
TPPA
TPPA hade inte ens trätt i kraft och hade (tyvärr) inte gjort det med HillClin vid rodret heller. Man kan dessutom debattera om det är en milstolpe att helt enkelt inte göra någonting (signera/ratificera/implementera), likväl vilka som vinner/förlorar på att inte idka frihandel västerut.
Citat:
Massvis av ALL-time-high börsrekord
"Consumer-confidence" på 16års-högsta
Hundratusentals nya jobb
"Consumer-confidence" på 16års-högsta
Hundratusentals nya jobb
En alternativ grönsakspresident - t.ex. En pumpa med peruk iklädd kostym - hade kunnat notera samma "framgångar". Det är högkonjunkturs-markörer ditt pucko! Det är fullständigt omöjligt, i bemärkelsen "saknas kausalitet", att koppla några konkreta Trump-åtgärder till dessa data och du framstår som svårt desperat för att öht dra upp dem.
Citat:
Neil Gorsuch - SCOTUS
Detta är intressant eftersom Trump för det första och enligt egen utsago inte har gjort ett ruttet skit för att åstadkomma denna utnämning. Några konservativa think tanks har satt samman en shortlist - f.ö. Inte uppdaterad sedan våren - och Trump pekade på ett av namnen. Därefter blev nomineringen filibustrad, vilket aldrig skett förut, och reglerna för senaten fick ändras. Det går med rätt mycket rätta att ifrågasätta om detta är en framgång, men även i så fall om det är en framgång Trump ska ha kredd för.
Citat:
Illegal invandring på 17års-lägsta
Det - illegal invandring - går ju för fan inte att mäta din stackars idiot. Du måste syfta på någon annan markör. Förtydliga.
Citat:
"Manufacturers Confidence" på 20års-högsta
Ytterligare ett tecken på att det råder högkonjunktur.
Citat:
36 Executive orders. Skrotat Obamas skitpolitik
Såhär skriver bara någon med oerhört grunda kunskaper om maktdelning, särskilt vad verkställande makt innebär. Jag har skrivit det i den här tråden så många gånger att jag undrar om faktaresistensen hos Trumps supportrar är patologisk.
1. Executive orders och memorandums är inte mer betydelsefulla än språket i dem. Läs själv och återkom. Det stora flertalet är rena luftpastejer och ren smörja som rättsakter betraktade. De EO:s som faktiskt har effekt - travel ban 1 & 2 - är som du vet olagliga. "Sanctuary city"-dekretet är omöjligt att tillämpa även om det skulle överleva domstolarna. Det definierar inte ens vad en Sanctuary city är. Det är en ren lurendrejeri-produkt och Trump-huset borde skämmas för att försöka lura de mindre kunniga till en bild av dådkraft du uppenbarligen har köpt. Han hade kunnat rita en streckgubbe och kalla den executive order 37 - hade det gjort dig lyckligare?
Läs på lite om hur man skapar policy och hur man skapar photo ops:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...nothing-214775
Citat:
There is a wide gap, a chasm even, between what the administration has said and what it has done. There have been 45 executive orders or presidential memoranda signed, which may seem like a lot but lags President Barack Obama’s pace. More crucially, with the notable exception of the travel ban, almost none of these orders have mandated much action or clear change of current regulations. So far, Trump has behaved exactly like he has throughout his previous career: He has generated intense attention and sold himself as a man of action while doing little other than promote an image of himself as someone who gets things done.
It is the illusion of a presidency, not the real thing.
It is the illusion of a presidency, not the real thing.
The key problem here is understanding Trump’s executive orders and presidential memoranda. Trump very quickly seized on the signing of these as media opportunities, and each new order and memo has been staged and announced as dramatic steps to alter the course of the country. Not accustomed to presidents whose words mean little when it comes to actual policy, opponents have seized on these as proof that Trump represents a malign force, while supporters have pointed to these as proof that Trump is actually fulfilling his campaign promises.
Neither is correct. The official documents have all the patina of “big deals” but when parsed and examined turn out to be far, far less than they appear. Take the order authorizing the construction of a border wall between the United States and Mexico. [...] The problem? Congress initially passed a Secure Fence Act in 2006 that required the construction of nearly 700 miles of fortified border. By 2011, under the Obama administration, most of that was completed, with a mix of pedestrian fencing and vehicle fortifications. Since then, there has only been minimal funding for further fortifications.
The result is that Trump issued an executive order mandating something that has in many respects already been done—with no congressional funding yet to redo the current fortified border with a larger, more expensive structure. The president does not have the budgetary discretion to build such a wall, and it remains to be seen whether Congress will authorize what promises to be a controversial and redundant project. This executive order, therefore, changes nothing, and only mandates something that has already been mandated, already been constructed and that the president lacks the spending authority to upgrade.
Then take things like the Keystone pipeline permits, [...]
That might seem like an order to have the pipelines built. But Keystone remains almost entirely an idea, and oil shipments and infrastructure from Canada have long since been routed elsewhere given the years and years of delay in ever authorizing it. The Dakota Access Pipeline is largely complete, with a major dispute over its passage through tribal lands, and here too, it is unlikely that a presidential memorandum has any legal bearing on how that issue is resolved given that it lies within the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers and cannot simply be countermanded by the White House.
Or the crime orders signed on February 9, which were widely hailed as cracking down on “transnational criminal organizations” and “preventing violence against … law enforcement officers.” Nothing in the text of these orders is either objectionable or in any respect a departure from current law and policy. One order states plainly that it shall be the policy of the administration to “enforce all Federal laws in order to enhance the protection and safety of Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers, and thereby all Americans.” The other says that the administration will seek to use existing laws to crack down on trafficking. You would have known none of that from the headlines both supporting and denouncing the efforts. Breitbart claimed “Trump Signs Three Executive Orders to Restore Safety in America” while many took these orders as a sign that police will have new, expanded powers and protections. In truth, the orders changed the status quo not one whit.
Neither is correct. The official documents have all the patina of “big deals” but when parsed and examined turn out to be far, far less than they appear. Take the order authorizing the construction of a border wall between the United States and Mexico. [...] The problem? Congress initially passed a Secure Fence Act in 2006 that required the construction of nearly 700 miles of fortified border. By 2011, under the Obama administration, most of that was completed, with a mix of pedestrian fencing and vehicle fortifications. Since then, there has only been minimal funding for further fortifications.
The result is that Trump issued an executive order mandating something that has in many respects already been done—with no congressional funding yet to redo the current fortified border with a larger, more expensive structure. The president does not have the budgetary discretion to build such a wall, and it remains to be seen whether Congress will authorize what promises to be a controversial and redundant project. This executive order, therefore, changes nothing, and only mandates something that has already been mandated, already been constructed and that the president lacks the spending authority to upgrade.
Then take things like the Keystone pipeline permits, [...]
That might seem like an order to have the pipelines built. But Keystone remains almost entirely an idea, and oil shipments and infrastructure from Canada have long since been routed elsewhere given the years and years of delay in ever authorizing it. The Dakota Access Pipeline is largely complete, with a major dispute over its passage through tribal lands, and here too, it is unlikely that a presidential memorandum has any legal bearing on how that issue is resolved given that it lies within the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers and cannot simply be countermanded by the White House.
Or the crime orders signed on February 9, which were widely hailed as cracking down on “transnational criminal organizations” and “preventing violence against … law enforcement officers.” Nothing in the text of these orders is either objectionable or in any respect a departure from current law and policy. One order states plainly that it shall be the policy of the administration to “enforce all Federal laws in order to enhance the protection and safety of Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers, and thereby all Americans.” The other says that the administration will seek to use existing laws to crack down on trafficking. You would have known none of that from the headlines both supporting and denouncing the efforts. Breitbart claimed “Trump Signs Three Executive Orders to Restore Safety in America” while many took these orders as a sign that police will have new, expanded powers and protections. In truth, the orders changed the status quo not one whit.
2. Skrotat Obamas politik? Vad har du rökt? Han har rullat tillbaka 12 regulatoriska regleringar som gjordes det sista halvåret under Obama.
Vad gäller helheten:
Trump’s claim that ‘no administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days’
Citat:
Thirteen of the Trump bills disapprove of major regulations put in place by Obama, which signifies a reversal of action, not new action — though the agency is barred from ever repromulgating the rule in question or anything similar without congressional approval. Other bills include such actions — what Frendreis called “minor or housekeeping bills” — as naming a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago in American Samoa or creating a waiver to allow Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to be appointed even though he had recently served in the military.
Moreover, none of Trump’s bills can be considered “major” legislation according to political science standards, whereas at least nine of Roosevelt’s bills met that standard. Historians H.W. Brands of the University of Texas at Austin and David M. Kennedy of Stanford University count 15 major bills in FDR’s first 100 days, including some that remain in place.
“In this regard, Trump’s tenure has been less impressive, with no major pieces of legislation passed,” Frendreis said. “By contrast, the stimulus package was passed during Obama’s first 100 days” — actually, within Obama’s first 30 days.
Moreover, none of Trump’s bills can be considered “major” legislation according to political science standards, whereas at least nine of Roosevelt’s bills met that standard. Historians H.W. Brands of the University of Texas at Austin and David M. Kennedy of Stanford University count 15 major bills in FDR’s first 100 days, including some that remain in place.
“In this regard, Trump’s tenure has been less impressive, with no major pieces of legislation passed,” Frendreis said. “By contrast, the stimulus package was passed during Obama’s first 100 days” — actually, within Obama’s first 30 days.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-has-done/
Citat:
Ny sjukvårdsreform genom "huset"
Tror du på allvar att Trump ens läst det där missfostret? Det har varit smärtsamt uppenbart för alla att Vita huset inte leder kongressen när det gäller lagstiftning, utan tvärtom - man sätter Paul Ryan på att skita ur sig nåt på en vecka, sen försöker man sälja skiten utan någon som helst granskning.
Kongressen leder Trump! Illa dessutom.
Potus kan inte bli indicted. Kongressen impeaches. Idioterna Mensch och Taylor har en paypal knapp på sin blogg där man kan donera, undra hur många godtrogna det är som lurats hitintills? 
