6 ms·
He has to do everything at once because he is a lame duck president so that part makes sense. The conflicting messages sudden reversal of plans causes the bigg
by ipaddr 1y ago
He has to do everything at once because he is a lame duck president so that part makes sense. The conflicting messages sudden reversal of plans causes the biggest issues.
Normally someone makes a case and tries to sell it to the public, congress. What's the purpose of tariffs to bring in income or to bring back jobs or to level trade agreements? You can't do all things at once and how does that work with other promises like lower prices. The lack of an overall plan is causing the issue.
If you take immigration he has a plan and he stuck to it and those are where his highest approval numbers are. Imagine he one day opens the border another day closes it starts kicking out American families the next day invites the world back in. That's his trade policy.
Get a solid plan, understand the downsides and if you can live with it stick with it and keep the personal insults out.
- triceratops 1y ago> he is a lame duck president Doesn't his party control both houses of Congress?
- klipt 1y agoThen why is he trying to rule 99% solo by executive order instead of working with congress to pass legislation?
- WillPostForFood 1y ago1: I agree he should. Tariffs by presdential order is an obscene power for Congress to delegate. 2: What 10 democrats would work with Trump? It would be gridlock for four years (which is fine).
- dgfitz 1y ago1.) I agree. However, if it other countries can impose tariffs at the drop of a hat and it takes a literal act of congress to pass a tariff, they'll never happen. Would that be a good thing? Maybe. Maybe not. Congress is obviously mostly useless. I was reading, of all things, a buzzfeed a few months ago where the biggest gripes of current house/senate members were along the lines of "it takes way too long to get anything done" and "I'm pretty sure most of my peers drink on the job" I used the "act of congress" phrase intentionally, as it is generally a euphemism that describes, among other things, how long something can take or how hard it is to approve a thing. I don't have a good solution to that problem.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoBecause he's a moron.
- WillPostForFood 1y agoThey have majorities, but arguably to "control" Congress, you need 60 votes in the Senate, otherwise most legislation can be blocked by the filibuster. Do we love or hate kyrsten sinema for protecting the filibuster now?
- triceratops 1y agoBy that definition there hasn't been a non-lame-duck President since Obama for a few months in 2009.
- thowfaraway 1y agoI'm just saying having a majority doesn't mean fully controlling congress. It has nothing to do with whether one is a lame duck. Also, posting limits are annoying as fuck.
- arrosenberg 1y agoStill hate her (but Harry Reid far more). The filibuster is why we are in this mess - we can’t ever fix a problem. There will always be 41 Senators (often representing more cash and/or cows than people) to pass meaningful legislation.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoRemoving the filibuster can be done by majority vote, as it's just a rule of the Senate.
- arrosenberg 1y agoYeah, that's why I blame Harry Reid.
- intended 1y agoHow is he a lame duck President?? Hes the most powerful President America has seen in living memmory.
- Terr_ 1y agoOr least-scrupulous, which looks similar in the short-term. :p
- bluGill 1y agoHe is no more powerful than any other president. He has been using his power more than others - and demonstrating why most don't use it (well some of the reasons, there are a lot of other reasons not to use power). However time is marching forward and as always happens other politicians are catching on - the house will be in full campaign mode in less than a year (except a few who retire - and the scary possibility that some have already lost a primary). 1/3 the senate is in the same situation. The 2026 election season is (as always) scaring a lot of politicians and in turn they will be trying to figure out what to do about it. I can't tell you what will be done about it. Each politicians will make their own decision behind closed doors. Each will be re-evaluating their decision as every poll and constitute letter comes in (not to mention other indicators like the economy). As a result he will be losing power as congress starts to worry about the effect of his actions.
- khalic 1y agoGiven how much soft power the US lost by defunding USAID and alienating its allies, he’s actually the weakest president in a long time.
- kergonath 1y agoThe strongest president of the weakest USA. It’s not mutually exclusive, there are lots of all-powerful dictators in tiny countries.
- platevoltage 1y agoI'd argue post 9/11 Bush was the most powerful president. There was nothing that man wasn't allowed to do during that time. If Trump was president during that time.... Not something I want to think about.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> He has to do everything at once because he is a lame duck president He is not. A President is a lame duck between the election of their successor and the end of their term, not at the beginning of their Constitutionally-final term.
- WillPostForFood 1y agoThat's the traditional meaning, but also commonly used to refer to politicians who are term limited, and can't run again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)#United_St... A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as a lame duck from early in the second term, since term limits prevent them from contesting re-election four years later.
- vkou 1y agoHe does not believe he can't run again, so it's a doubly inappropriate description.
- wombat-man 1y agoAnd who will stop him from running again?
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoHow bad are the economy and midterms going to be? Will Republicans think that supporting a 3rd Trump term will be good for their own reelection prospects?
- wombat-man 1y agoThey turned right around to pick him after the insurrection. It looks like we are in for a pretty bad time economically. But even so, he is running the party. Wouldn't shock me if he ran again and got nominated.
- austin-cheney 1y ago> Get a solid plan That is not the solution. In business yes, but for the president the answer is still NO. Presidents should be eliminated for writing executive orders. It should be a constitutional amendment if necessary. Everything the president wishes to order is either under the responsibility of the legislature or is already within the President's scope of responsibilities.
- bluGill 1y agoEvery president has used executive orders. However congress shouldn't have left something so important as tariffs up for modification by executive order.
- austin-cheney 1y agoNo, the executive order was an invention of Lincoln to bypass congress to expand war powers.
- bluGill 1y agoThat is easy to refute. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federa...
- austin-cheney 1y agoWhile it might be easy to refute that article does not refute what I said. The only evidence to the contrary found in that article is an executive order from the 1830s that was repealed two years later, which doesn’t make a strong case of disagreement.
- bluGill 1y agoThe article doesn't say what they were but George Washington issued eight.