Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Miscellaneous achievements

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.[1] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:35, 13 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 There have been some more high-profile withdrawals and some more conservative withdrawn nominees.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: [2]).

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)

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)