Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-exactly-like-Ted-Williams dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

On [April 29], Donald Trump marks the 100th day of his presidency, and finds his approval ratings much lower than any of his modern predecessors.

One reason for this could be perceptions about his accountability. To become president, Trump made a lot of promises to a lot of people--663, in fact. In just 100 days of what would be 1,461 days of a first term, Donald Trump has broken 80 promises he made before he was sworn in.

[...] A close analysis of the 663 promises Trump made on the campaign trail shows how few he has kept, and how many more he has broken.

Trump's promises about what he would accomplish in his first 100 days are not the first vows pegged to a key milestone that were summarily ignored or broken. As a candidate, Trump made several pledges about the first paper he would sign, as well as what would he would do during his first minute and first hour as president. He kept none of them. On his first day in office, Trump failed to keep 34 different promises of what he said he would do on Day One in the White House--and fulfilled just two.

In total, during his first month in office, Trump broke 64 promises. He kept just seven of his promises in that first month.

Including those from the first month, Trump has broken 80 promises and kept seven in the first hundred days. Three promises have been addressed with some caveats in a separate category below.

[...] When the AP's Julie Pace asked Trump about the 100-day plan, Trump replied, "I'm mostly there on most items."

The reality shows the opposite.

[...] Trump promised he won't let countries steal our jobs anymore.

"We'll put our people back to work, we will not let other countries steal our jobs. It it is not going to happen anymore." Worcester, MA, 11/18/15 [Video]

According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Labor Department data, at least 11,934 American jobs have been lost or are in the process of leaving the United States since Inauguration Day.

In going to a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to celebrate his amazing string of accomplishments over the last 100 days, Trump avoided the White House Correspondents Association dinner where he was sure to have been the butt of about a billion squarely-on-target jokes.

As for Trump's claim that "No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days", Politifact notes

The 15 major bills [which Franklin Roosevelt signed in his first 100 days] included those that created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority (both of which still exist) and the Home Owners Loan Corp. He signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which established farm subsidies, and the National Industrial Recovery Act, which started public-works efforts to reverse the Great Depression. He signed legislation to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and wine, and he issued executive orders to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps and to effectively take the United States off the gold standard.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:52PM (5 children)

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:52PM (#503198)

    Ummm, those two didn't make the promises on the campaign trail though. So I'm not sure what they have to do with it, if anything.

    The truth is that this article is 100% about Trump. Ditch the 100 day metric for success and just look at what he said would do for the American workers, and what he has actually done.

    Trump has in fact flipped on a large number of things he said, to the extent we don't know what the fuck he is thinking, or what he will do next. NAFTA changed 3 times in less than a week right?

    Let that sink in. Neither his detractors or supporters can figure out what is coming next. Objectively, he has failed to live up to his promises, which is proven by nothing more than him electing the Foxes to watch the hen houses. I'm sure it hurts Republicans to watch it, especially the poor and blue collar Republicans, but if it walks like a duck......

    Trump is busy betraying his voters faster and more thoroughly than Obama ever did. Obama? He sets the bar for betrayal and Trump can never be 2nd in anything....

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:33AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:33AM (#503427) Journal

    "this article is 100% about Trump."

    No, this article is 10% about Trump, and 90% about liberal opinions and perceptions of Trump.

    If I may, I want to point out that I predicted that Trump would be a lame duck president from day one. Even if he knows what he wants to do, even if he knows how to get it done, he isn't going to get it done for a number of reasons. Lefties hate him, righties hate him, greenies hate him, everyone hates him - except the populist voters.

    I think that all parties to the political process need to be careful. The voting public put Trump in office. There is a possibility that the same voting public takes note of the betrayal of all actors in the political process, and starts punishing those who oppose trump. No - I'm not predicting that happens, I'm pointing out the possibility. In all seriousness, I don't think there are enough sophisticated voters in America to make the Dems, Reps, and others pay for screwing over their chosen boy.

    Just remember - Trump won precisely because the voters were sick of the status quo in Washington. It COULD come back to bite everyone in the ass.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:25AM (3 children)

      Just remember - Trump won precisely because the voters were sick of the status quo in Washington. It COULD come back to bite everyone in the ass.

      That's a bunch of bullshit, Runaway. If the voters were sick of the status quo in Washington, they wouldn't have put just about every incumbent seeking re-election back into office in 2016 [rasmussenreports.com]:

      This election cycle, 393 of 435 House representatives, 29 of 34 senators, and five of 12 governors sought reelection (several of the governors were prohibited from seeking another term). Of those, 380 of 393 House members (97%), 27 of 29 senators (93%), and four of five governors (80%) won another term. These members of Congress and governors not only won renomination, but also won in November.

      There were many reasons why Trump was elected president, but being sick of the status quo wasn't one of them. if that were the case, the electorate would have "thrown the bums out" en masse.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @05:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @05:18PM (#503774)

        So if 98% of people vote for 98 different random candidates giving them each 1% of votes while 2% of people vote for some specific dude who is known due to having already been elected, it follows that people in general cannot possibly be sick of this 2% person?

        Obviously exaggerating numbers to drive a point thru. Voting systems tend to have various failure-modes.

      • (Score: 2) by termigator on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:43PM (1 child)

        by termigator (4271) on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:43PM (#503887)

        Folks are sick of the stats quo, but they think the person they voted for is ok. It's all the other politicians that are problematic.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 03 2017, @08:23PM

          Folks are sick of the stats quo, but they think the person they voted for is ok. It's all the other politicians that are problematic.

          So, rather than (among other things) the manufactured polarization of the electorate, you're saying it's self-delusion instead?

          I disagree.

          I suppose I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most people see the glass as half-full, not half-empty as some want us to believe. As such, we (most of us, at least) want similar things and are pretty horrified by the excesses of the side we don't support. We then excuse the excesses of "our" side because those "other guys" are the real bad guys.

          The whole thing stinks of "divide and conquer." And it's been working too. As a society, most of us want similar things (with substantial differences on certain civil liberties and fiscal policy), although we're not agreed on how to make them happen. Those differences have been exploited by those who wish to maintain their power (and the good graces of their benefactors) to divide us.

          Politics is supposed to be the "art of the possible," not "my way or the highway."

          If we stop allowing those with the most to lose from genuine compromise in the public interest to divide us, we could agree on so many things we have in common, and work to create compromises in the areas where we disagree.

          Just a crazy thought.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr