The legislation proposed for the first 100 days didn't make it.
If you were going to work on them which 2 would you make the priority?
Edit:
I'll try to keep track of don't do any of them here.
So far I think I see 4. But if not. Vote.
@Papabravo , @crutschow , @nsaspook, @djsfantasi

 

Doesn't really matter now does it?

 

Doesn't really matter now does it?

It only allows 10. I was going to add something like none of the above.

 

It only allows 10. I was going to add something like none of the above.

It doesn't really matter what we would work on, and seemingly it may not matter what any individual wants to work on. It looks like what gets worked on will be a function of group dynamics. Picking winners and losers will be like pickin' ticks off a houn' dog.

 

It doesn't really matter what we would work on, and seemingly it may not matter what any individual wants to work on. It looks like what gets worked on will be a function of group dynamics. Picking winners and losers will be like pickin' ticks off a houn' dog.

I agree. It's the group dynamics that I'm curious about.

 

I agree. It's the group dynamics that I'm curious about.

The current players are the Congress, with two subgroups, the Executive, with two or more factions, and the courts. It is not clear what pressures from the constituency of Congress would be effective in persuading them to change their announced direction. I don't think there is anything meaningful we can do to change the Executive's direction except continuing to hand them defeats.

Of course once they succeed in poisoning the air and water it won't make any difference anyway. Looks like California may be the place to go.

 

The less the present congress does, the better.

 

The less the present congress does, the better.

Any congress.

 

I voted for the two that can quickly maximize liberty without spending money, school choice and lower taxes. I'd add repealing ACA if I had a 3rd choice, but I think it will take longer to have a positive impact than the other two. Infrastructure sounds great, but it's pure spending and you first have to take money from one pocket before you can spend it into the other. When the federal government does it, there's always an overhead expense tacked on to the transfer.

 

It only allows 10. I was going to add something like none of the above.

Like the re-negotiation of NAFTA and tariffs placed on Canadian softwood lumber imports which will mean higher costs for US home builders?.
Max.

 

Like the re-negotiation of NAFTA and tariffs placed on Canadian softwood lumber imports which will mean higher costs for US home builders?.
Max.

I only used the ones that require legislation. I would like to do all his promises, because it seems from the responses that no one cares or doesn't want much of his legislation. Maybe I could just make a big list and let people comment, but I fear that would get out of hand quickly. But hey, I'm willing to try it.

 

Like the re-negotiation of NAFTA and tariffs placed on Canadian softwood lumber imports which will mean higher costs for US home builders?.
Max.

My good pal Al Franken (I'm sure he's a Trump supporter) says it's great news.
http://www.ifallsjournal.com/news/b...cle_f4166802-72cc-5da1-9042-779ccffdff4f.html

Franken called new trade penalties slapped on Canadian softwood lumber imports a major victory for Minnesota workers and their families.
...
“I’ve heard from lumber producers and sawmills across Minnesota that are struggling to get by, and I believe they deserve a fair shot,” said Franken. “They deserve a government that will stand up for them when foreign companies engage in illegal trade practices. That’s why I’ve long called on the federal government to crack down on the subsidized Canadian softwood lumber that’s flooding across our border and putting Minnesota workers out of jobs. I’m glad the Department of Commerce has recognized this as a major problem and that they’ve taken the initial step of levying new tariffs on these unfair imports.”

 

None, as I have absolutely zero confidence that this administration has the skill to construct any legislation. Nevermind anything more complicated than jaywalking regulations. They could screw that up, too.

I'm quietly waiting for about two years. That's when the Republicans will lose their majority and Trump is screwed. Hell, he can't get legislation passed WITH a majority.

 

Hello,

I translated the cartoon posted in the dutch newspaper:



Bertus

 

Hello,

I translated the cartoon posted in the dutch newspaper:

View attachment 126042

Bertus

Being the President sucks, Hillary should be happy she lost.

"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11policy.html

Trump is only learning the same lesson as his predecessor.