Trump On 100 Days

[Kathianne]

Some analysis. I'm not good at watching videos, I don't trust my hearing. Thus, I look for analysis. I've no doubt that I'll be finding more, but here is ABC's:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-withdraw-tpp-day-mum-building-wall/story?id=43703187


Trump Says He Will Withdraw From TPP on Day One, Mum on Building the Wall

By CANDACE SMITH

Nov 21, 2016, 7:28 PM ET





President-elect Donald Trump (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/donald-trump.htm) has released a video message on social media detailing his plans for the first 100 days of his presidency, including withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Day One, but staying mum on his signature immigration issue, building a wall on the southern border.


Trump, breaking precedent, has not yet held a press conference and has not answered ongoing questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest regarding his business and the presidency. He and his family sat for an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” the Sunday after the election, but has since forgone any other opportunities to be questioned other than those shouted as visitors came and went from Trump National Golf Club last weekend.


“Our transition team is working very smoothly, efficiently and effectively. Truly great and talented men and women, patriots indeed, are being brought in and many will soon be a part of our government,” he says.


Trump goes on to discuss policies he championed during his candidacy; his intent to withdraw from the TPP, cancelling restrictions on coal and gas, ethics reform, as well as lobbying bans.


“On ethics reform, as part of our plan to drain the swamp, we will impose a five year ban of executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the administration. And a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government,” Trump said, reiterating a policy his transition team announced earlier this month.


He also addresses immigration, one of his hallmark policies during his candidacy. He proposes, not to build the wall he became infamous for suggesting he would construct, but instead an executive action to investigate visa abuse.


“On immigration, I will direct the department of labor (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/business/labor-department.htm) to investigate all abuses of visas programs that undercut the American worker,” he adds.

...

[Kathianne]

New media from a somewhat Trump supporter:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/21/trump-releases-video-with-policy-plan-for-the-first-100-days/

Video is available if someone wants to watch and comment. I'd like to see NT's take, he's done a good job of interpreting Trump.

[pete311]

Won't investigate Clinton. Let's keep count how many promises he breaks.

[Kathianne]

Won't investigate Clinton. Let's keep count how many promises he breaks.

another thread: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?57370-Conway-No-Pursuit-of-Charges-Against-Clinton

[fj1200]

Some analysis. I'm not good at watching videos, I don't trust my hearing. Thus, I look for analysis. I've no doubt that I'll be finding more, but here is ABC's:


Trump Says He Will Withdraw From TPP on Day One...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-withdraw-tpp-day-mum-building-wall/story?id=43703187

Hoover....

[Black Diamond]

Hoover....

I doubt he would raise taxes during a recession/depression. :)

[Black Diamond]

Won't investigate Clinton. Let's keep count how many promises he breaks.

You misspelled "every President/politician in American history"

[fj1200]

I doubt he would raise taxes during a recession/depression. :)

He's already stated he would/might raise tariffs.

[Black Diamond]

He's already stated he would/might raise tariffs.

To pay for the wall?

[fj1200]

To pay for the wall?

No.

[Black Diamond]

No.

That was the tool he seemed to mention when he said Mexico will pay for it.

[fj1200]

That was the tool he seemed to mention when he said Mexico will pay for it.

With Mexico and every other country that doesn't meet his definition of fair.

[jimnyc]

Won't investigate Clinton. Let's keep count how many promises he breaks.

The liberals and never Trumpers will just have to sit and wait I suppose. He looks just fine thus far for me. Then again, I'm not looking for reasons to point fingers before he gets into office though. But thanks, sitting back and watching the liberals and never Trumpers, watching them look for these reasons, watching them already whining about every little thing he does. Funny and sad!! Would you too like to watch him go eat his steak, Petey? For me it's all good news though, as the more complaints I see from the #never_Trumpers and the liberals, the more I enjoy all of this. :)

You sit back and count with them. Have fun!! :coffee:

[jimnyc]

That was the tool he seemed to mention when he said Mexico will pay for it.

As they should. And I have no problem with tariffs being increased against them, nor any other country we do trade with. Time for some fairness.

[fj1200]

As they should. And I have no problem with tariffs being increased against them, nor any other country we do trade with. Time for some fairness.

I imagine that's what Hoover thought.

[jimnyc]

I imagine that's what Hoover thought.

You keep imagining. I'll keep rooting for the fairness I speak of.

At the BARE minimum though, I'll reserve my judgment and complaining for when he is actually in office and actually does things.

[fj1200]

You keep imagining. I'll keep rooting for the fairness I speak of.

At the BARE minimum though, I'll reserve my judgment and complaining for when he is actually in office and actually does things.

Free trade is good, protectionism is bad. That doesn't really change if we wait two months.

[Black Diamond]

Free trade is good, protectionism is bad. That doesn't really change if we wait two months.

Maybe you're smarter than Warren Buffett. You should bet that way.

[Black Diamond]

The liberals and never Trumpers will just have to sit and wait I suppose. He looks just fine thus far for me. Then again, I'm not looking for reasons to point fingers before he gets into office though. But thanks, sitting back and watching the liberals and never Trumpers, watching them look for these reasons, watching them already whining about every little thing he does. Funny and sad!! Would you too like to watch him go eat his steak, Petey? For me it's all good news though, as the more complaints I see from the #never_Trumpers and the liberals, the more I enjoy all of this. :)

You sit back and count with them. Have fun!! :coffee:

My favorite is still the idea of the 30 electors going rogue.

[fj1200]

Maybe you're smarter than Warren Buffett. You should bet that way.

Which Buffett should I bet with?


I’M ABOUT TO DELIVER A WARNING regarding the U.S. trade deficit and also suggest a remedy for the problem. But first I need to mention two reasons you might want to be skeptical about what I say. To begin, my forecasting record with respect to macroeconomics is far from inspiring. For example, over the past two decades I was excessively fearful of inflation. More to the point at hand, I started way back in 1987 to publicly worry about our mounting trade deficits—and, as you know, we’ve not only survived but also thrived. So on the trade front, score at least one “wolf” for me. Nevertheless, I am crying wolf again and FORTUNE NOVEMBER 10, 2003 this time backing it with Berkshire Hathaway’s money. Through the spring of 2002, I had lived nearly 72 years without purchasing a foreign currency. Since then Berkshire has made significant investments in—and today holds—several currencies. I won’t give you particulars; in fact, it is largely irrelevant which currencies they are. What does matter is the underlying point: To hold other currencies is to believe that the dollar will decline.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/08/americas-growing-trade-deficit-selling-nation-heres-fix-problemand-warren-buffett-2003/

Or I should bet with his desire to increase taxes? Be patient with me, I'd like to get this right because if I'm going to desire a bigger government to "fix" something I'd like to remain consistent.

[Black Diamond]

Which Buffett should I bet with?


http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/08/americas-growing-trade-deficit-selling-nation-heres-fix-problemand-warren-buffett-2003/

Or I should bet with his desire to increase taxes? Be patient with me, I'd like to get this right because if I'm going to desire a bigger government to "fix" something I'd like to remain consistent.

The one who thinks who thinks the market is going up under Trump. If you think the market will tank, there are instruments you can use to make a lot of money using that idea. The current market also shows no alarm regarding a Trump presidency. Seems they don't think he is hoover or what he may have brought forth. But if you think the market and Buffett are stupid in what they see happening in the future, again you should be able to make a pretty penny.

There are some who bet on 2007-08 and don't have to work anymore.

[fj1200]

The one who thinks who thinks the market is going up under Trump. If you think the market will tank, there are instruments you can use to make a lot of money using that idea. The current market also shows no alarm regarding a Trump presidency. Seems they don't think he is hoover or what he may have brought forth. But if you think the market and Buffett are stupid in what they see happening in the future, again you should be able to make a pretty penny.

There are some who bet on 2007-08 and don't have to work anymore.

So you'll cherry pick which opinions you like? All I'm saying is the markets went up under Hoover as well and then Messr.s Smoot and Hawley got a law passed. I don't want a Hoover II.

"Fairness" is a reason that liberals get laws passed.

[Black Diamond]

So you'll cherry pick which opinions you like? All I'm saying is the markets went up under Hoover as well and then Messr.s Smoot and Hawley got a law passed. I don't want a Hoover II.

"Fairness" is a reason that liberals get laws passed.
He's an asswipe. But he has made a lot of money. The market in general must be stupid right now if Trump is hoover.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. A few saw the housing bubble crash and made a fortune. People laughed at those individuals but they aren't being laughed at anymore.

[fj1200]

He's an asswipe. But he has made a lot of money. The market in general must be stupid right now if Trump is hoover.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. A few saw the housing bubble crash and made a fortune. People laughed at those individuals but they aren't being laughed at anymore.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, should I agree with him or not? Hoover wasn't a pejorative until October '29. As far as who saw the crash, one can be "right" for the wrong reason which if true just means you were lucky. See Elaine Garzarelli as example. I don't want to ignore historical example especially when it lines up with a conservative viewpoint.

I do think though that markets price in all available information which gives me reason to be optimistic.

[jimnyc]

Free trade is good, protectionism is bad. That doesn't really change if we wait two months.

Making things more fair is hardly restraining things. I know that's been your favorite word, but you're wrong.

[fj1200]

Making things more fair is hardly restraining things. I know that's been your favorite word, but you're wrong.

:confused: Protectionism restrains trade and raises costs; I'm right on that front.

[Black Diamond]

Reagan has a reputation of being protectionistic. How did we do under him?

[jimnyc]

:confused: Protectionism restrains trade and raises costs; I'm right on that front.

I'll repeat myself - making things fair - does not restrain trade

[fj1200]

Reagan has a reputation of being protectionistic. How did we do under him?

:confused:

Reagan Embraced Free Trade and Immigration (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-embraced-free-trade-immigration)

[jimnyc]

Reagan has a reputation of being protectionistic. How did we do under him?

"The most protectionist president since Hoover" is the first article I see. Reagan nearly killed our trade and cost us kajillions! LOL

[fj1200]

I'll repeat myself - making things fair - does not restrain trade

Tariffs... restrain trade.

[jimnyc]

Tariffs... restrain trade.

Oh well, then I guess other countries should be prepared for things to be a bit more fair.

Of course you know better though, so I'll end it right here. I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

[Black Diamond]

:confused:

Reagan Embraced Free Trade and Immigration (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-embraced-free-trade-immigration)

https://mises.org/library/ronald-reagan-protectionist

[fj1200]

"The most protectionist president since Hoover" is the first article I see. Reagan nearly killed our trade and cost us kajillions! LOL

Now you just need to make the argument that those were helpful and worth the cost.

[fj1200]

Oh well, then I guess other countries should be prepared for things to be a bit more fair.

Of course you know better though, so I'll end it right here. I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

I made a true statement. My apologies.

[jimnyc]

Now you just need to make the argument that those were helpful and worth the cost.

Actually, I don't. :)

[jimnyc]

I made a true statement. My apologies.

No offense, but whether you think it's a true statement or not, matters very little to me. I told you I wasn't looking to get into it any further with you, so I made my opinion known as well. I have no desire to run in circles.

[OCA]

Reagan has a reputation of being protectionistic. How did we do under him?

Not too good in the end.

[Black Diamond]

So in Trump, we are getting Reagan.

Socialism here we come.

[fj1200]

https://mises.org/library/ronald-reagan-protectionist

Nice find. The difference is likely trade war. We didn't have one, if at all, on the scale of 1929 nor did we have one in 1924? under Harding.

[jimnyc]

So in Trump, we are getting Reagan.

Socialism here we come.

Oh no, just the horror in it all.

[Black Diamond]

Not too good in the end.

Yeah too bad Mondale didn't win. We could have had Carter II.

[fj1200]

Actually, I don't. :)

OK.


No offense, but whether you think it's a true statement or not, matters very little to me. I told you I wasn't looking to get into it any further with you, so I made my opinion known as well. I have no desire to run in circles.

It is though.


So in Trump, we are getting Reagan.

Socialism here we come.

He's no Reagan but hopefully not Hoover.

[OCA]

Yeah too bad Mondale didn't win. We could have had Carter II.

Instead we got arms to terrorists.......nice.

[jimnyc]

Instead we got arms to terrorists.......nice.

Shut up, Michael. :coffee:

[OCA]

Shut up, Michael. :coffee:

Money to Nicaragua to fund a bunch of rag tag douches and crack for all of America to enjoy.

[jimnyc]

Money to Nicaragua to fund a bunch of rag tag douches and crack for all of America to enjoy.

I think probably more hash out of it than crack, I don't think crack came from there. Also has nothing really to do with tariffs and protectionism either, bubble head!

[OCA]

I think probably more hash out of it than crack, I don't think crack came from there. Also has nothing really to do with tariffs and protectionism either, bubble head!

Somebody itterated how wonderful the Reagan years were. The contras controlled the cocaine smuggling routes that were going through Central America at that time because we had cracked down on Miami, all this coincided with the blowup of crack in the late 80s.

[Kathianne]

Which Buffett should I bet with?


http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/08/americas-growing-trade-deficit-selling-nation-heres-fix-problemand-warren-buffett-2003/

Or I should bet with his desire to increase taxes? Be patient with me, I'd like to get this right because if I'm going to desire a bigger government to "fix" something I'd like to remain consistent.
:laugh2: