The first 100 days

[watu05]

If the first hundred days of a new presidency are critical to setting priorities and getting key issues addressed. It is informative to look at what Trump is initially focusing on. While he stated what he would do, seeing how he did it offered even more information. For example, he did say he would pardon the patriots who tried to overthrow the government on Jan 6, but few thought he would pardon everyone, including those who had assaulted police. So what does that tell us that we didn't already know? A clear statement that no matter what you do, as long as you do what Trump wants, he will protect you. The perfect message is you want members of you administration to ignore the law, and just do as you say.

With that established, firing inspector generals in almost all the government departments reinforces the message. Curiously many of those IGs were hired by Trump's previous time in office, but four years of adherence to the law under the Biden administration means a new set is required.

While some of Trumps EOs are unconstitutional and illegal, it will take time to reverse them. Meanwhile Trump' has sent the message to his administration to not worry about breaking the law, he'll pardon you no matter what. And by the way with the IG's gone, illegal actions may not come to light anyway.

Will our institutions withstand this approach? We'll find out.

 

[lawpoke87]

If the first hundred days of a new presidency are critical to setting priorities and getting key issues addressed. It is informative to look at what Trump is initially focusing on. While he stated what he would do, seeing how he did it offered even more information. For example, he did say he would pardon the patriots who tried to overthrow the government on Jan 6, but few thought he would pardon everyone, including those who had assaulted police. So what does that tell us that we didn't already know? A clear statement that no matter what you do, as long as you do what Trump wants, he will protect you. The perfect message is you want members of you administration to ignore the law, and just do as you say.

With that established, firing inspector generals in almost all the government departments reinforces the message. Curiously many of those IGs were hired by Trump's previous time in office, but four years of adherence to the law under the Biden administration means a new set is required.

While some of Trumps EOs are unconstitutional and illegal, it will take time to reverse them. Meanwhile Trump' has sent the message to his administration to not worry about breaking the law, he'll pardon you no matter what. And by the way with the IG's gone, illegal actions may not come to light anyway.

Will our institutions withstand this approach? We'll find out.

Guess you’re going to just ignore the over 8000 pardons and clemency grants of Mr. Biden? Of course you are….he’s a Dem. # Hypocrisy

 

[watu05]

Another step in the same direction:

Acting Secretary of Labor Vince Micone today transmitted Secretary’s Order 03-2025 to all department employees, directing them to cease and desist all investigative and enforcement activity under the rescinded Executive Order 11246 and the regulations promulgated under it.

 

[astonmartin708]

Guess you’re going to just ignore the over 8000 pardons and clemency grants of Mr. Biden? Of course you are….he’s a Dem. # Hypocrisy

Those 8000 people never tried to directly disenfranchise me. Mr Biden wasn’t impeached and didn’t use a jury of his allies to avoid jail time. #Treason

 

[lawpoke87]

Those 8000 people never tried to directly disenfranchise me. Mr Biden wasn’t impeached and didn’t use a jury of his allies to avoid jail time. #Treason

Censoring and silencing the speech of the citizens of this country in an effort to retain political power is in fact disenfranchising those citizens.

 

[astonmartin708]

Censoring and silencing the speech of the citizens of this country in an effort to retain political power is in fact disenfranchising those citizens.

No, by definition, it's not. Also, what you're talking about with Biden was very early in his presidency it had little to do with trying to retain political power.

 

[lawpoke87]

No, by definition, it's not. Also, what you're talking about with Biden was very early in his presidency it had little to do with trying to retain political power.

it actually started during his run for the presidency with pressure on social media sites to censor and silence his son’s laptop story. He simply continued and amplified his censorship efforts during his presidency.

 

[astonmartin708]

it actually started during his run for the presidency with pressure on social media sites to censor and silence his son’s laptop story. He simply continued and amplified his censorship efforts during his presidency.

But.... you don't care about someone personally paying hush money to 'censor' personal affairs with porn stars. Cool. Good to know.

BTW, if you think the Trump admin (and every other admin before that) didn't do any strongarming of media in its first term, you are delusional. You think the Bush admin didn't exert any media influence during the runnup and during Iraq?

 

[lawpoke87]

But.... you don't care about someone personally paying hush money to 'censor' personal affairs with porn stars. Cool. Good to know.

BTW, if you think the Trump admin (and every other admin before that) didn't do any strongarming of media in its first term, you are delusional. You think the Bush admin didn't exert any media influence during the runnup and during Iraq?

No I don’t care if a President is banging a movie star. I don’t care if a President is getting a bj in the Oval Office. I certainly don’t care if a private citizen banged a porn star years before he became president.

The problem isn’t one certain incident of Biden and his allies silencing the speech of Americans which is critical of their position. The issue is the prolonged censorship and violation of civil rights which took place over a period of years. Something extremist support because their side was the violator. The same people who for years championed civil liberties and free speech. If Pubs silence the free speech of dissenting voices over the next four years I will bitch just as much. Only extremist see free speech as a one sided issue

 

[astonmartin708]

No I don’t care if a President is banging a movie star. I don’t care if a President is getting a bj in the Oval Office. I certainly don’t care if a private citizen banged a porn star years before he became president.

The problem isn’t one certain incident of Biden and his allies silencing the speech of Americans which is critical of their position. The issue is the prolonged censorship and violation of civil rights which took place over a period of years. Something extremist support because their side was the violator. The same people who for years championed civil liberties and free speech. If Pubs silence the free speech of dissenting voices over the next four years I will bitch just as much. Only extremist see free speech as a one sided issue

I didn’t ask you if you cared about him banging a *porn star. I asked if you cared about him paying bribes to cover it up? Which isn’t much different than trying to not get someone to speak about the contents of a laptop. (Except there’s no evidence Biden ever paid or threatened anyone)

You just use actions taken during a medical crisis to try and maintain some semblance of handle on the situation as a crutch to beat the previous admin with, while completely ignoring the litany of civil rights violations your side is conducting and overlooking during a time of relative stability.

 

[lawpoke87]

I didn’t ask you if you cared about him banging a *porn star. I asked if you cared about him paying bribes to cover it up? Which isn’t much different than trying to not get someone to speak about the contents of a laptop. (Except there’s no evidence Biden ever paid or threatened anyone)

You just use actions taken during a medical crisis to try and maintain some semblance of handle on the situation as a crutch to beat the previous admin with, while completely ignoring the litany of civil rights violations your side is conducting and overlooking during a time of relative stability.

If I don’t care about the act then why would I care about the parties entering a NDA to keep said act private? Again…I didn’t care that Kennedy was banging MM or Bubba was getting bj’s in the Oval Office. I didn’t even care when they publicly lied about their transgressions despite they not only occurred while in office but at the office. Do we care Kamala had an affair with Willie Brown then accepted benefits from him? I sure don’t.

If Biden’s violations of civil rights was limited to keeping people safe during a crisis you might have a point. Unfortunately, it went well beyond the guise of safety. A common theme for leaders throughout history who cross that line and silence those who dare dissent against them. Sad things is you are still blinded by extremism and support those acts.