What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Trump voters can't/won't care about any of this. He could straight up start concentration camps and they wouldn't care/would think it's a democratic trick or say a democrat Roosevelt did it first and he didn't get any criticism or something. As long as he doesn't try to take their guns, they will support him whatever he does.

Well he might if Dem militias start forming.

They will be outgunned.

[Kleves]

I think that's unfair.  People voted for Trump for a lot of different reasons.  And while some may feel as you say, others will not.

There's no possible legitimate reason to vote Trump. If you do, then clearly reason, facts, and morality don't matter to you or factor into your thinking. So nothing he can do to someone else (particularly of a different race/religion) will shake your support.

[grumbler]

There's no possible legitimate reason to vote Trump. If you do, then clearly reason, facts, and morality don't matter to you or factor into your thinking. So nothing he can do to someone else (particularly of a different race/religion) will shake your support.

So everyone who disagrees with you has illegitimate opinions?

That's a good way to demonstrate that your views are resonable and thus legitimate! 

[grumbler]

Trump voters can't/won't care about any of this. He could straight up start concentration camps and they wouldn't care/would think it's a democratic trick or say a democrat Roosevelt did it first and he didn't get any criticism or something. As long as he doesn't try to take their guns, they will support him whatever he does.

I think that's unfair.  People voted for Trump for a lot of different reasons.  And while some may feel as you say, others will not.

I think that your point is forgotten by the fanatics.  Judging by the recent opinion polls, there is a lot of buyer's remorse going around.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-world-protests-live

Trump just signed another new executive order, this one on the theme of cutting regulation.

The purpose of the order states that:

for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

It's being done as a cost-cutting measure, although it's not yet clear the practicalities of cutting two regulations for every new regulation to be implemented.

[Barrister]

Trump voters can't/won't care about any of this. He could straight up start concentration camps and they wouldn't care/would think it's a democratic trick or say a democrat Roosevelt did it first and he didn't get any criticism or something. As long as he doesn't try to take their guns, they will support him whatever he does.

I think that's unfair.  People voted for Trump for a lot of different reasons.  And while some may feel as you say, others will not.

I think that your point is forgotten by the fanatics.  Judging by the recent opinion polls, there is a lot of buyer's remorse going around.

There's a tendency on both the right and the left after losing an election to want to "blame" the voters for just not being smart enough or virtuous enough to see that they should have voted for your guy.  And probably some of them are.  But to write off everyone who voted "wrong" means you're just checking out of the legitimacy of democracy.

[LaCroix]

"at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination" leaves trump a lot of wiggle room while facially adhering to his campaign promise. they can just go down the list and delete regulations deemed, after thoughtful analysis, unnecessary

[LaCroix]

also, isn't repealing a regulation a regulation? 

[Zanza]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-world-protests-live

Trump just signed another new executive order, this one on the theme of cutting regulation.

The purpose of the order states that:

for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

It's being done as a cost-cutting measure, although it's not yet clear the practicalities of cutting two regulations for every new regulation to be implemented.

Is there some kind of "natural" size for a regulation? What stops me from combining three prior regulatory documents into one, add a bunch of new rules for good measure and claim victory?

[Barrister]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-world-protests-live

Trump just signed another new executive order, this one on the theme of cutting regulation.

The purpose of the order states that:

for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

It's being done as a cost-cutting measure, although it's not yet clear the practicalities of cutting two regulations for every new regulation to be implemented.

Is there some kind of "natural" size for a regulation? What stops me from combining three prior regulatory documents into one, add a bunch of new rules for good measure and claim victory?

This idea is pure flimflammery.  Nothing, to answer your question.

[LaCroix]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists form coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided.

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

TRUMP = Man of the People

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13288594/new-silent-majority

oh no, vox, the silent majority today is the same as nixon's

[frunk]

If the new administration can't do basic vetting that's on the new visas that they'll be issuing, they shouldn't screw with the previous visas issued by an administration able to do such basic activity.

[viper37]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists form coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided.

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

TRUMP = Man of the People

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13288594/new-silent-majority

oh no, vox, the silent majority today is the same as nixon's

How many terrorist attacks on US soils committed by people of the countries targetted by this new EO?

[LaCroix]

p sure none

[grumbler]

If the new administration can't do basic vetting that's on the new visas that they'll be issuing, they shouldn't screw with the previous visas issued by an administration able to do such basic activity.

Yeah, that's the amusing thing about Trump's bold new measures:  he's reinventing the wheel, and claims he's inventing teleportation.