emceng wrote:to his base.
Your list isn't accomplishments though. Let's break them down.
1) lifetime ban on white house officials lobbying for foreign governments
--- what about the ones that are currently in there, and lobbying for foreign governments? Kushner and his ties to the middle east, the pretty obvious ZTE bribe handled by a Trump campaign staffer(admittedly not a White Houes person, but still). It's an accomplishment in the same way I have resolved to eat healthier, and not have any cake. Sure i had some yesterday, and tomorrow I might as well. But I can definitely say right at this moment, I'm not eating cake. Unless I am, behind closed doors, because this administration is as corrupt as they come.[/quote]
He made an executive order on the topic, if memory serves. So, more than just a promise, though I agree it doesn't address a great deal of other things.
2) dropping out of the Paris accords
--- I think this is a bad thing, but I guess his base will applaud it.
Oh, they definitely do. His base sees this as a great thing, though of course it's seen as negative by the opposition. Definitely noteworthy, if controversial. Most of the "rolling back environmental regulations" falls into this category, really.
3) got North Korea to release prisoners
--- Yep, something most administrations have done. Obama got at least two people out of North Korea.
Sure, and it's good when they do it as well.
4) executive order that for every new regulation added, two be repealed
--- This is completely idiotic. It barely would trick a 5 year old. Hey honey, you're not allowed to have 2 candy bars, but I don't care if you put six into a bowl of ice cream!
I mean, I agree that regulations are not something for which quantity is a meaningful thing. Laws are not all equal. Not by a long shot. But it's a big step towards deregulation, at least from his base's perspective. We might think it's stupid, but it's an accomplishment that does affect the way regulations are made.
Mutex wrote:There's also plenty of things he promised, and then did the exact opposite. E.g. every American having medical cover, and then doing his best to kill the ACA.
In fairness, his base wanted the ACA dead. There are few things Republicans have clamored for more. Now, it's also fair to note that no good replacement has really emerged, but in that, he was doing exactly what those who voted for him wanted.
CorruptUser wrote:And then the justices turn around and declare them unconstitutional.
If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.
If SCOTUS rules that background checks and waiting periods are a violation of the second amendment, POTUS and congress can only change the second amendment to fix that.
While that is technically true, and the Supreme Court does have a great deal of sway, they are generally not quite so activist, and times when they have been, the results have been controversial. It seems likely that the current court won't try to declare all abortion unconstitutional. The SC is still super important, but they've been content to rule on more limited grounds of late. This is probably for the best overall.
sardia wrote:In seriousness, Democrats are in a tight spot, since they really depend on Trump* acting out in really really bad ways to get a big win.
*Gaining some seats isn't enough, cuz rural areas get more electoral bang for each vote = GOP advantage. This also assumes that the high variance in polling is averaged out to x points across all elections in November. This is not guaranteed.
Yeah. It's definitely doable, but by no means a sure thing. And people have been continuously over-estimating the backlash to Trump's actions. 2018 is very much up in the air still, and watching it develop is gonna be fascinating.
sardia wrote:That inconveniences conservatives. Like if abortions lowered taxes, the abortion lobby would wither.
But abortions do lower taxes...
According to Freakonomics, they do indeed, mostly by reducing dependence on those social programs right-wing folks hate. Abortions are cheap in comparison to childcare.
The right generally prioritizes moralizing over economy, though. Not really a surprise. The right does really good at charitable giving if you count churches. They really, really enjoy moralizing. It'd probably be different if libertarians run the party, but that's pretty unlikely anytime soon.