Do you like Trump better, the same or worse than when he started?

@EXOprimal

>Massive budget cuts, increase in military spending
>Requested money to build the border wall
>Muslim ban
(Still important, though it is not in place)
>the previously mentioned pulling out of the Paris climate accords
(I believe this was Trump's best decision and speech of his presidency so far)
>Various labor related legislation

Those are executive orders, not legislation.

How is "asking for money for the wall" legislation?

Anybody can ask for stuff you don't get, it doesn't count as much in the way og achieving things normally.

Leaving Paris accord is a disaster. Seen from Europe USA is a crazy rogue country, that does not want to help to fix global warming. Even though it will get you also.

@SamuelCaplan

How is he not a bad person? He has directly swindled people in for instance Trump University. ALso is knows for not paying his bills, which is why none of the big law firms want to represent him in the Russia thing, they think he will cheat and not pay them.

@Raspberry_yoghurt
"In parliamentary systems and presidential systems of government, primary legislation and secondary >legislation<, the latter also called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation >are two forms of law<, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of government"

Executive orders hold the same force of law, and are considered legislation.

Border Wall:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316101-trump-orders-work-to-begin-on-border-wall

The Paris accords are pathetic, the lack of any reinforcement makes them next to useless. As many states already meet the goals that Obama outlines in the previous accords, or has pledged to strive to reach the goal there is no reason to stay in the accords. As Obama set some obscene goals in the last accords, the new one will just be an excuse to humiliate the US; leading to a falling of the US' standing. Small State level goals have proven to be much more effective in reducing emissions than the Paris accords. Not to mention the initial avoidance of getting congress involved in the original meeting. The US also has pre-existing legislation that attempt to lower carbon emissions, like UNFCCC, and setting emission targets that are not enforced will not help.

@EXOprimal

Maybe some if them are legislation of some kind then? Still, the coolest thing is to get stuff passed in the Senate, and he doesn't get that done a lot - if he did at all?

There are no fixed accords in the Paris agreement as such. It is a problem with it, but it is all we got.

The agreement matters a whole lot politically, because if it is seen as US dropping out. maybe other countries will also drop out, and then we are all screwed.

Also, it has mechanisms for fich countries helping poor countries to reduce.

Remember, the CO2 will get ya, matters not if is is emitted in India or USA. So we need to help the poor countries.

Your "standing" has dropped already now, to a point where us in Europe are considering if NATO is even a thing in the long term. You are considered a joke now, basically. Nobody knows if it is possible to rely on USA for anything.

Because of Trump and because leaving the Paris accords and so on.

I think Trump a lot is using the bad things he thinks will happen because of him in his speaches, because he has low imagination. So he was thinking the world would laugh at USA if he got elected, thus he used that.

Like if I am a thief and not smart and want to accuse somebody of something, I will say "thieving" and not say "arson" because I have no imagination.

On the topic of executive action and law, would you rather earn 20 dollars by working, or by finding it on the ground? I mean working is "cool" but you don't get anything extra out of it. Similarly, why spend months trying to pass a law through the house and senate when you could just sign an executive order?

How would we all be "screwed" if countries dropped out of the accords? Again, the accords have a minimal affect on climate emissions . National, not international, goals are a better limiter.

By staying in the accords we give other countries that set much smaller goals in relation to their carbon emissions a chance to claim superiority over the US.

In the end the accord is just a treaty without any enforcement, making in literally useless in reducing carbon emissions.

Now that we have a conservative president in office, he is upholding republican views, not being involved in foreign affairs, and looking to the good of our nation, not NATO.

We are getting a bit off topic here, my point still stands - Trump is not that bad of a president, being on the opposite spectrum as Obama makes it seem like he is somehow evil.

Better Trump that Hillary.

Not sure how it works with the executive orders, but I guess it is limited what you can do with them?

My impression was that the executive orders are Ok for like "small" issue, but "big" things like the healthcare system needs to go through Congress and Seneta. Amd Trump can't just make the health care system he wants with an executive order.

Don't know how it works exactly`?

NATO was made by USA because it was good for USA. It was an American idea. The idea was not to benefit say Germany, the idea was to benefit USA.

The Paris is not useless. But it is tupical of Americans, I can explain you why it is useful, and you are like so stubbborn, you just don't see it and repeat whatever your view is.

Here again:

"Also, it has mechanisms for fich countries helping poor countries to reduce.

Remember, the CO2 will get ya, matters not if is is emitted in India or USA. So we need to help the poor countries."

It is good for you to help India and South America to reduce faster, because if they emit, well Indian CO2 it's yours and ours ass on the line as well. There's just one sky, doesn't matter which country the CO2 comes from.

But I guess Europe has to save the world alone now, while USA lying in the hammock pondering the universe.

Also together with the Asian countries, but USA just is not really part of anything anymore.

All but one of the wars that the US was involved in, the involvements started with an affirmative action.

Countries with the most carbon emissions have a sufficient GDP to support their own programs to reduce carbon emissions. The top three being China, USA, and Russia(1).

India, who's GDP is rising rapidly, is projected to be 6th place of all countries in GDP(2).

Even if we were to give money to countries with smaller incomes, the lack of enforcement in the accords makes it impossible to regulate where the money is being spent. As many governments in Africa and the middle east are becoming increasingly unstable the money could easily be spent on anything else.

There is no difference in 100 million metric tons of carbon emission being reduced in China than in Sudan.

In the green climate fund the US put more money into it that any other country. Japan(In second place) has only pledged half of what the US pledged(3). 3 other countries with the top climate emissions( Russia, India, China) have pledged a grand total of $0(amazing right, and apparently we're doing something wrong?) The fact that the US was paying for nearly all of the green climate fund is one of the main reasons that Trump decided to drop out.

1.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WVLIE2jythE
2.http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php
3.www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.

-Donald Trump

Politics is a big lie, trust me. The opposition is false.