SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 268:
Line 268: + +
Talk:Donald Trump achievements (view source)
Revision as of 11:30, June 26, 2017
, 11:30, June 26, 2017Russian Mi-17 copters
::::::::@JDano: you are correct. I will try to keep failures only to those that are immediate, such as the Senate failure to repeal the Obama methane regulation, or the Trump Administration's continuation of Obama executive policies. If a court modifies or undoes an achievement, I will still note it in the 2017 article if it happened in a later year. If a failure is undone (like the administration ending DACA in 2018, for example), I will remove the failure but note in the 2018 article how widely-discussed it was as a failure the year prior. The main article would be an overview, so people wanting more information can go to the sub-articles. The articles have a clear organization, and I will be doing the same organization style for each year, so navigating it is not an issue.
::::::::@JDano: you are correct. I will try to keep failures only to those that are immediate, such as the Senate failure to repeal the Obama methane regulation, or the Trump Administration's continuation of Obama executive policies. If a court modifies or undoes an achievement, I will still note it in the 2017 article if it happened in a later year. If a failure is undone (like the administration ending DACA in 2018, for example), I will remove the failure but note in the 2018 article how widely-discussed it was as a failure the year prior. The main article would be an overview, so people wanting more information can go to the sub-articles. The articles have a clear organization, and I will be doing the same organization style for each year, so navigating it is not an issue.
::::::::JDano, I don't like discussing hypotheticals. I like tackling an issue only if it is already happening, partly because there are so many variables to consider. But just so I can satisfy your question, I would probably only note the former and not the latter. Noting the bill signed into law is enough I think. I might consider noting the number of infrastructure projects done that year, but it I would not go into specifics. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 03:14, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::JDano, I don't like discussing hypotheticals. I like tackling an issue only if it is already happening, partly because there are so many variables to consider. But just so I can satisfy your question, I would probably only note the former and not the latter. Noting the bill signed into law is enough I think. I might consider noting the number of infrastructure projects done that year, but it I would not go into specifics. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 03:14, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
==Russian Mi-17 helicopters==
Let's slow down and be careful in our research. The [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/25/american-helicopters-to-replace-russian-models-in-/ ''Washington Times'' article] said "The Obama administration came to realize the failure in its last weeks in office and stopped the deal." [https://www.defensetech.org/2016/12/06/mi-17-rusisan-flying-afghanistan/ Defense Tech] reported on the decision on December 6. What is at issue is that Afghanistan had a bunch of Mi-17 helicopters and was already trained to fly them. In March 2014, the Obama administration crafted sanctions against Russia for attacking Ukraine, but the sanctions did not include Rosoboronexport, the state-run arms broker, who was allowed to continue maintaining Mi-17s. For whatever reason, Russia by 2016 stopped supplying parts under its contract, so the US will replace Mi-17s with US made products. Some people were disappointed that Obama did not cut off the Rosoboronexport deal back in 2014. Trump was silent on the issue back in 2014 and during the campaign, so I don't see why this is being added to the article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT)