Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Miscellaneous achievements"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(2018 campaign)
(Proclamations: new section)
Line 227: Line 227:
  
 
The Trump Administration has not clearly said it will *not* seek to change the $20 bill, but it clearly does not see it as a priority, which is still good.[https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30224-trump-supports-keeping-jackson-on-20-bill] So far, this has been a success, though I'm reluctant to add it to the article since it doesn't appear to be "concrete" yet. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (EDT)
 
The Trump Administration has not clearly said it will *not* seek to change the $20 bill, but it clearly does not see it as a priority, which is still good.[https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30224-trump-supports-keeping-jackson-on-20-bill] So far, this has been a success, though I'm reluctant to add it to the article since it doesn't appear to be "concrete" yet. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Proclamations ==
 +
 +
Trump proclaimed World Freedom Day: [https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-proclaims-world-freedom-day-to-oppose-communism-and-to-uphold-individual-liberties_2353983.html] Seems good, but not significant enough to actually add to the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Revision as of 22:59, 10 November 2018

Independence Day -- patriotic song

President Trump shared a very patriotic song made by an evangelical church for Independence Day 2017.[1][2][3][4] Contrast this with Barack Obama ([5]) and other liberals.[6] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Salary

President Trump chose to donate his salary to restore Antietam National Battlefield.[7][8][9] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

President Trump donated his latest paycheck to help pay for infastructure improvements: [10][11][12][13][14] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2018 (EST)
This time, Trump donated his salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs: [15] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
And now, to the Small Business Administration: [16] I think it would be better that he donate the money to a private organization, personally. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (EDT)

FBI headquarter move cancellation

This is an interesting story: a long-proposed move of the FBI headquarters canceled early in Trump's presidency does not seem very much like a coincidence to me, but I don't see at all how it can be added as an achievement, at least yet.[17] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is now supporting a new FBI headquarters, asking for it in its proposed budget: [18][19] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2018 (EST)

Tension with AG Jeff Sessions

Maybe this belongs in the Justice Department article (sometimes it is difficult deciding which achievements best goes in which articles), but Trump firing Sessions,[20][21] who is arguably taking the most action to implement Trump's agenda, would be a definite failure. A good article I found on it: [22] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2017 (EDT)

George Nesterczuk

I am only adding this edit here for the record. I reverted it because this is only one withdrawal of a nominee who is not well-known. There have been some more high-profile withdrawals and some more conservative withdrawn nominees. What is more noteworthy is the fact that so far, the Senate has not rejected any of Trump's administration nominees (this administration is likely the most conservative in modern U.S. history; his cabinet alone is more conservative than even Reagan's administration: [23]).

JDano, I will let you re-add this only if you add some of the other high-profile withdrawals, and only if you also note that almost every single administration nominee was confirmed by the Senate and none so far rejected (and all of it well-sourced). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Also, we need to put this withdrawal into perspective. We do not know who the replacement nominee will be (at least I don't). Maybe the replacement will also be conservative? Replacing a conservative nominee with a conservative nominee is not a failure. This withdrawal (along with the other high-profile withdrawals, of which there are very few so far) is not of the same level of the conservative Bork being rejected and being replaced by the moderate Kennedy. Not as significant, and the nominees are not as different (with all of the withdrawals so far).
More and more, I am leaning against re-adding any of the withdrawals at all, unless a conservative nominee was replaced by a moderate. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2017 (EDT)
I did find this Politico article calling this an obstacle to Trump's plans to bring government reform. This definitely does not sound good, but I still think it is best to wait and see who the next nominee is, how long it takes until they are confirmed, and what they do in office. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
When you write, "JDano, I will let you re-add this only if..." you display the worse bullying behavior and an excessive sense of page ownership. This is a group writing project, and you are forcing your biases upon other writers when you obviously do not know the facts! Do you even know George Nesterczuk? Have you read his biography or what the federal employee unions say about him? If you lack knowledge, step back and stop trying to boss around other editors. If we applied your criteria of "wait and see who the next nominee is, how long it takes until they are confirmed, and what they do in office." then we would remove 90% of the achievements that you added to this series of articles. JDano (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
I've read about him, and I'm not happy about him withdrawing. I find it interesting that you did not add anything when the 8-or-so other nominees withdrew. It's only this one nominee. I think I explained clearly above why this one nominee should not be added alone. You should be glad that I gave you an opportunity to re-add the info with the proper context. One nominee withdrawing (when we don't even know who the replacement will be) is nothing compared to the ~120 confirmed nominees.
Also, JDano, you are jumping to silly conclusions, calling me a "bully" and saying that I "own" the article. Your bad editing, both related to your editing behavior and your content, is not helping your case at all. You are engaging in personal attacks. Stop.
Your claim that 90% of all the achievements would be removed is also silly -- of course, you believe that Pence becoming the highest ranking U.S. official in history to speak at a pro-life event and official government documents from 2017 promoting conservative principles are not achievements (Andy clearly disagreed with you on his talk page). I take your opinion with a grain of salt. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
My point is that if we followed your advice and see how a decision played out to its conclusion, then we would leave out 90% of the entries in the "Donald Trump achievement" article because these issues have not yet played out in full. In my opinion, giving a speech at a pro-life event is not an achievement and does not have any policy impact. In contrast, if new legislation passed on the issue, that would be an achievement. To use your words, the abortion issue has not "played out to its conclusion." And yes, your tone reflect an unhealthy sense of "ownership" of these pages. JDano (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
The reason why I revert your edits is because they are bad edits. You have been blocked several times by the site's owner due to the content of your edits. I don't think my behaviors regarding you are "unhealthy" considering this. And yes, these achievements are real achievements. I created a page specifically for achievements not affecting official policy -- achievements can be regarding culture, political culture, forming new precedents, "shifting the pendulum," etc. I have differentiated between the two types, and I will continue to do so. If you still disagree with me, please go and convince the site's owner to agree with you. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
The amount of info I have posted on the talk pages rather than the actual article is also proof that I am not carelessly adding fake achievements. There is a lot of info that I see that I am not sure if I should add -- I put that info on the talk pages, possibly to put it on later but not necessarily. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
If you think an achievement is really a failure, provide good evidence, and show that the downsides of an Administration action outweigh the good. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2017 (EDT)
[edit conflict] The amount of info that 1990sguy posts on the talk pages proves nothing. Trump nominated George Nesterczuk to be head of the Office of Personnel Management, the agency that sets HR policy for the federal civilian workforce -- a very important agency. Nesterczuk is more conservative than his Obama administration counterpart and was opposed by the federal employee unions. The Trump administration did not fight for his nomination, and after two months it appeared stalled so it was withdrawn. That is a failure, and we don't have to "wait to see how it plays out". This set of pages is 1990sguy's personal whim rather than the product of objective criteria. JDano (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2017 (EDT)
I know about who he is. I already explained that I am not happy about him withdrawing. What I'm saying is just wait and see what happens before posting this as a failure before you even know who the successor is. If I saw this withdrawal before you did, I would have posted it to the talk page, rather than add it prematurely. And stop making snide and harrassing comments such as "this set of pages is 1990sguy's personal whim rather than the product of object criteria" (btw, I usually cite multiple sources for each achievement, so if you're correct I must control countless media sources :) ). If you continue making these comments, I will report you to an admin. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

Scott Garrett

Another Politico article is discussing Scott Garrett's troubles in getting confirmed to lead the Export-Import Bank. Hopefully, he won't fail like the other nominee above did. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

Good news: the Trump Administration will most likely stick with Garrett. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
Your posts are illogical. Trump nominates good people. If they were not qualified or had sharp policy differences with Trump, they would not be nominated in the first place. If they are good, and then Trump gives up on them, that is a "failure" not an "achievement". The fact that news stories run that the Trump administration "will most likely stick" with a nominee is not "Good news." One would assume that the Trump Administration would fight for all of its nominees and that we do not need to see which way the wind is blowing for each nominee each week. We must document how the confirmation process is going without regard to whether we think the Export-Import Bank is a good or bad policy. A lot of Trump nominees are having trouble in the confirmation process, and these articles are not documenting the problems in a logical, objective manner. The format of the article which forces everything to be either an "achievement" or "failure" is short sighted, particularly when the overall confirmation process is a mess. JDano (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
When did I ever say that Trump giving up on a nominee is an "achievement"? Show me the diff in which I said that. Considering that Garrett has been under heavy pressure to withdraw, it is good news that Trump is not giving up on him. Also, the content in this article series can change over time. I have added notes whenever new developments occur over something I previously posted, and I also removed information that I thought was premature or inappropriate to add when considering the context. There are no problems in this area. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
Garrett failed to win the required votes several months ago, but he now works at the SEC: [24][25] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

Other appointments news

Trump nominated Michael Pack, a strong conservative and ally of Steve Bannon, to lead the Broadcasting Board of Governors: [26] This is a good nomination that we should watch. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2018 (EDT)

The White House is appointing political appointees and Trump allies to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a small federal agency: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Shutting down advisory councils

This may not be appropriate to add here as an achievement (partially because the Trump Administration created them and because he kind of was forced to do this), but it is good that Trump does not need to deal with these two economic advisory councils filled with liberal business leaders.[28][29][30][31] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2017 (EDT)

It's not just those: the arts council, filled with Obama holdovers, essentially dissolved when nearly every member resigned.[32] Honestly, I kind of wish more of these controversial incidents would happen -- in the case of Trump's Charlottesville response, I think he did the right thing, and yet liberal advisors quit over it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
The digital economy council also dissolved: [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Numerous members of the infrastructure council resigned,[34][35] and the climate change council was dissolved.[36] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
Trump fired every member (all Obama appointees) from the HIV/AIDS advisory council.[37][38][39] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2017 (EST)
9 of the 12 members of the National Park Service's advisory board just resigned due to disagreeing with Interior Secretary Zinke: [40][41][42][43][44] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Criticism of Sessions

Like usual, I am just adding this as a "for the record" statement, but I removed this info. The bad-mouthing of Sessions does not appear to have had any lasting impact -- in retrospect, it is just a bump in the road. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

And, as I should probably expect, people on left-wing websites that watch this page continue to criticize me for my edits here. This removal of information, despite what those leftists say, show that this article will change every now and then when appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
It seems that Sessions played a big role in convincing Trump to (reportedly) undo DACA (albeit with a six-month delay). It seems that Sessions has restored his standing with Trump, at least to an extent.[45] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Impossible to see Trump

When John Bolton, of all people, is no longer able to even speak to President Trump, there is a problem: [46][47][48] Hopefully, Trump won't listen to McMaster or Tillerson. Bolton should have more influence in the administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2017 (EDT)

If Bolton can't present Trump with a plan to end the Iran Deal, maybe Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu can: [49] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Dangerous and bad Senate resolution

The White House announced that Trump would sign a Senate resolution that might have dangerous consequences on free speech in the U.S., helping further the slide towards European-style speech restrictions: [50] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Other bad bills

This anti-human trafficking bill is concerning, as it appears to be effectively expanding the PATRIOT Act: [51] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2018 (EDT)

Space program: moon mission

According to Mike Pence, the Trump Administration is refocusing NASA's mission to putting people on the Moon again: [52] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Other space-related news

I don't know where I can add this to the article, if anywhere at all, but this is an interesting article on Trump's effect on the space industry according to a space executive: [53] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

Also, I should note, simply for future reference, that Trump's executive order helping deregulate the space industry is in the deregulation sub-article, not here. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
NASA Administrator Bridenstine is looking into selling naming rights for spaceships to private companies: [54] This seems like a good move if implemented, as it would allow NASA to rely on the private industry for revenue. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Unconfirmed administration nominees already at agencies

Some good news: some Trump Administration nominees, still unconfirmed because of how slow the Senate is, are already working at their respective agencies and doing similar tasks as the positions they are nominated for.[55] Hopefully, the Senate will confirm them too, particularly Russell Vought. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

The same thing just happened with two EPA nominees: [56] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

Ethics: potential failure?

According to Politico (which I admit is not the most Trump-friendly source), the Trump Administration has not been pursuing a pro-ethics agenda like it promised during the transition.[57] I will admit that the only proposed law/rule that I particularly like (though I'm not necessarily opposed to the rest) is the ban on foreign lobbying by government officials, which Trump already signed an executive order on -- hopefully, Congress will take action on that. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Renaming Mount McKinley back to "McKinley"?

President Trump appears to be considering naming "Denali" back to Mount McKinley. Hopefully, he doesn't listen to Alaska's senators and renames it back.[58][59] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

The Ohio GOP still wants him to name the mountain back: [60] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2018 (EST)

JFK files release

This might be worth adding: President Trump ordered the release of thousands of documents related to the assassination of JFK,[61] and despite the opposition of the national security community, he later ordered all the files, with some redactions, to be released.[62][63] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Obama holdovers/lack of progress

Here's an interesting article on the lack of progress at some agencies at advancing Trump's agenda: [64] It might be a good idea to add this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Appointing Bush Administration officials

Trump has appointed numerous Bush Administration officials to his Administration.[65] While each nominee should be evaluated by his/her own merits, it would be nice if Trump did not rely so much on the globalist Bush Administration for appointments. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Other Never Trumpers

Here are some interesting articles of people who oppose Trump and his conservative policies who are still working in the Trump Administration: [66][67][68] These sources, including the ones above, might be good to add in some way as a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2018 (EDT)

Trump loyalists are being targeted by Never Trumpers: [69][70] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
Nikki Haley seems to be a problematic appointee: [71] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Skipping California

President Trump is set to be the first president since Eisenhower not to have visited California in his first year in office.[72][73][74] It's not a particularly significant achievement, but at the very least, the symbolism is refreshing. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2017 (EST)

Trump is scheduled to make his first presidential visit to CA next week -- the week of March 12-17: [75] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2018 (EST)
What's great is that he's traveling there to inspect the border wall prototypes in the state: [76] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

Travel, in general

According to this USA Today article, Trump didn't do much traveling at all in his first year in office: [77] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

More on California

Partially because of Trump, California looks like it will have its first new water storage funded in 40 years: [78] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

Joe Arpaio

Apparently, Trump's pardon of Arpaio was not the end of the story -- the Left is still trying to annul the pardon: [79] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (EST)

2020 Census

There is some debate going on whether the Census Bureau should reintroduce the citizenship question for the 2020 Census, but the Bureau also just announced it would ignore the Obama Administration's recommendations for the census, which is a good thing: [80] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2018 (EST)

Speeches/interviews

Here are some interesting articles about Trump's speech at Davos[81] and his recent interview with Piers Morgan[82] where he advocates for conservative principles. I probably won't add these because these do not stand out and they are rather bland compared to some of the other statements Trump made, but they are still good to note here. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Some great statements by Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning: [83][84][85][86][87] Maybe I'll add some of this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2018 (EST)
Trump said in a speech yesterday that Republicans should go a little further to the right since Democrats are going very far-left on the issues: [88] Another great statement, and one that we need, considering how many RINOs exist. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
Some more great statements for Easter: [89][90] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
Trump criticized "the resistence" in his weekly address: [91] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
This is an old speech, but I'm noting this source here: [92] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
While a series of tweets, Trump did make some great statements on trade, immigration, and the economy: [93] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Somewhat interesting article on Trump's (refreshing) "nationalism" comment, which I am adding here since it's too ridiculous to add (for example, it calls the SNP "moderate" and doesn't use quotes from pro-Trump people while having many comments from many leftists: [94] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of Trump's apparent support for abolishing the Electoral College (apparently contradicting some earlier statements): [95] If he continues pushing this view, I will add it as a failure, though as a casual side-statement, it's not significant. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

On a positive note, Trump did endorse term limits for Congress: [96][97][98] However, many politicians have stated they support term limits, and that has gone nowhere. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
Actually, here's a conservative opposing viewpoint on congressional term limits: [99] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Not a speech, but while this does not appear to be anything significant (based on this article's criteria), I found it interesting that Trump commemorating Purple Heart Day received a relatively high-profile news article: [100] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

Some more sources on Mike Pence's SBC speech, which I think would have distracted from the main point of the entry I added, but which are still good to store here: [101][102][103] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

CPAC 2018

Several articles I've read have highlighted how more conservatives aligned with Trump are now speaking at CPAC and how Trump's globalist/establishment critics (like Jeff Flake, who used to frequently speak at CPAC) are missing: [104][105][106][107][108][109] Most of these articles don't make this point the central point, and I also saw this article, which discusses the decline of the Tea Party's presence at CPAC, so I'm inclined to leave this out, as interesting and good as it is. Also, CPAC has banned several conservatives this year, such as Dinesh D'Souza, Jim Hoft, and MassResistence, so that doesn't help. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Another article from Politico, which has a clear left-wing slant: [110] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
More interesting sources: [111][112][113] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2018 (EST)

"The unending campaign of Donald Trump"

WaPo obviously doesn't like the president, and reports this as if it's a negative or if it's unusual, but this article is still interesting to read. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2018 (EST)

This article, on Trump's impact on Ohio politics, is also interesting: [114] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article, on how Trump is able to "flip the script" against him opponents even if he does what many people consider a mistake: [115] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on Trump and polling: [116] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

2018 campaign

Several sources are noting how many candidates in GOP primaries are trying to associate themselves with Trump and his policies: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Some more sources about a shift in the GOP, this time on immigration: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
"Parking spot" for this article, on Trump's endorsement of Dean Heller for Nevada's Senate seat: [117] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
Another source on this general topic, though I probably won't cite it in the article, for multiple reasons: [118] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2018 (EDT)
Here's are other interesting articles on Trump's impact on the Republican Party that might be useful: [119][120][121][122] --1990'sguy (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (EDT)
Trump endorsed AL Rep Martha Roby, who harshly criticized him during the 2016 election. Normally, I would add this to the article, but considering who her opponent is (a former Democrat who voted for Palosi for speaker) and the fact (AFAIK) that she later tried to align herself with Trump, I guess Trump's endorsement is reasonable: [123][124][125] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2018 (EDT)
Another interesting article related to this overall topic: [126] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2018 (EDT)
Another interesting article: [127] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
Decent article on Trump's influence in picking GOP primary winners, and there are many other articles saying essentially the same thing: [128] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2018 (EDT)
Here's a good article on Trump's most recent special election win: [129] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
Another article on Trump's supposed "reshaping" of the GOP: [130][131] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump sharply criticized losing GOP candidates by name who refused to embrace him: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (EST)
More on this, including the fact that Republicans did better than average this election: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2018 (EST)

Trump has made some great endorsements -- in addition to the silly endorsements of people like Romney -- most recently of Kris Kobach: [132][133][134][135][136] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

This is not an endorsement, but Trump apparently refused to release a statement praising John McCain, instead releasing a statement expressing condolences to his family: [137] This choice was appropriate, as McCain was very unhelpful to Trump's (and the GOP's) agenda, with his pro-ObamaCare vote, vote against undoing a methane regulation, and refusing to resign from the Senate even though he was missing months-worth of votes with it being clear he would never go back. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

More on Trump's actions regarding McCain's death: [138][139][140][141][142] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump ordered flags to fly at half-staff until McCains burial: [143][144][145][146] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2018 (EDT)
McCain's death has helped reduce the number of anti-Trump Senate Republicans: [147] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2018 (EDT)

Interesting that the GOP has its highest approval rating since 2011, and it has surpassed the Democrats: 1,2,3,4,5,6 Obviously a good thing, but it may not be a good idea to add, since I don't see a clear connection to Trump (I think it's obviously there, but the sources don't mention it as a reason). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on some promises Trump has made shortly before the 2018 election: [148] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

Dealing with Congress

Trump hasn't been proactive in getting Congress to work more: [149] Of course, maybe he's trying to be pragmatic about dealing with them (trying not to upset them and thus make them oppose his agenda), but he also doesn't seem to be helping the situation. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2018 (EDT)

Senate problems

Right now, there are 569 bills passed by the House that are awaiting Senate action: [150] The vast majority of these bills are bipartisan, and the Senate probably won't take action on most of them. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Security clearances

Trump may revoke the security clearances of several Obama Administration officials who, for whatever reason, still have them and are politicizing their positions: [151][152][153][154][155][156][157] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

More on this: [158][159] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
The White House has said it is beginning the process of revoking their clearances: [160] This is probably something we should add (though we should also probably wait and see what happens) and definitely something we should follow. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on the general topic of security clearances: [161] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (EDT)
More on this: [162][163] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2018 (EDT)
Hopefully, Trump will follow through on his statement to revoke Bruce Ohr's clearance: [164][165] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
Hillary Clinton gave her security clearance up, in protest of the Trump Administration's recent actions mentioned above: [166] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

Twitter Shadowbanning

Trump stated his administration would look into Twitter's practice: [167][168][169] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

More social media actions

The DOJ will apparently look into claims of censorship on social media: [170][171] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

More on this: [172][173] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2018 (EDT)
The White House has drafted a potential executive order to probe big tech companies: [174][175][176][177] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2018 (EDT)

Natural disasters

Interesting articles on Trump's latest comments on the hurricane last year that hit Puerto Rico: [178][179] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

Andrew Jackson and the $20 bill

The Trump Administration has not clearly said it will *not* seek to change the $20 bill, but it clearly does not see it as a priority, which is still good.[180] So far, this has been a success, though I'm reluctant to add it to the article since it doesn't appear to be "concrete" yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (EDT)

Proclamations

Trump proclaimed World Freedom Day: [181] Seems good, but not significant enough to actually add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (EST)