US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

Peregrine wrote:
Let's not forget that UPS/FedEx/etc often use USPS for final delivery of their boxes.

True but so is the reverse. I loaded FedEx trucks in college and I occasionally tossed a USPS bag inside for the driver. We could of course always reinterpret the postal clause to allow the government to contract out general mail service, but honestly I'm just sour on private contractors and if USPS had a chance to not be a political chew toy and actually set some realistic goals for itself it would probably function better.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Are you saying that it isn't true, because it certainly is.

What is true? That Clinton was willing to use the military to intervene in other countries? I don't think anyone is going to dispute this, the issue is people defending Trump after he blatantly lied about opposing any potential war and then promptly started one as soon as it was convenient. And now we have the absurdity of you defending the con man, because apparently honestly supporting the use of the military is worse than taking the same actions but lying about it long enough to get elected.

I never stated that I supported a war. I'd have preferred to keep our noses clean and far from there. If you want to hit Trump with that, go right ahead. What I'm saying is that we've been down this road before, but worse. Obama strait out promised he wouldn't enter into conflicts with countries that weren't a direct threat to us, ever. He was quicker on the draw to hit the red button than Trump has been, and Hillary towed the party line.

Trump is a bite of a turd sandwich all right, I just think Hillary would have been a turd sandwich they make you order seconds of.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
Maybe I want to compare the Post office to a private company is because of the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act, which eliminated the old Post Office Department, replaced it with the US Postal Service. The act was intended to make the USPS self-financing from its own revenues, and to make it an independent, non-political public service. In essence the Post office was SUPPOSED to be run like a for-profit business.

The fact that it was done that way doesn't make it a reasonable thing to do. Pretending that the USPS is a private for-profit business when it's a constitutionally-obligated government service is nonsense. Of course the USPS doesn't pay taxes, just like the fire department doesn't pay taxes. You can, of course, argue for improvements in efficiency, but step one in fixing the USPS is to understand that you're talking about a government service not a for-profit business. And if that means undoing a stupid law, well, so be it.

**cuda1179**

LordofHats wrote:
The US Postal Service is an awkward institution in large part because it is a constitutional obligation. The government has to provide mail service per the Postal Clause (it's actually one of the only government institutions explicitly brought into existence by the Constitution), and even setting aside the constitutional issue it provides an essential service that is horribly undervalued today but still essential. People need a way to move gak from point a to point b. The struggles of the postal service are largely the result of idiotic mismanagement, underfunding, and just horribly goal setting.

The goal should not be for USPS to be "competitive" with privately owned deliverers. USPS should be refocused on doing something isn't profitable for private industry but still needs to be done; general mail. Let UPS and FedEx or whoever mail all the boxes. They're better at it and more effective, but neither of them gain much from more general paper mail service. Additionally USPS provides an essential function of mailing services at all; management of mailing protocol which is only getting more complicated with rising population. They're literally running out of road names in some zip codes! Gotta fix that gak XD

You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

I think we can acknowledge the absurdity of opening post offices that do not deliver mail, and that actually moving the mail from place to place is implicit in that clause. This is not YMDC, we don't need absurd RAW nitpicking.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

I think we can acknowledge the absurdity of opening post offices that do not deliver mail, and that actually moving the mail from place to place is implicit in that clause. This is not YMDC, we don't need absurd RAW nitpicking.

What it means is that the Government has the sole authority where and when it wants post offices, but is NOT required to put a post office anywhere or indeed to service any particular area. Random locations in fact have no right to mail delivery. A small town close to me for example has no-home delivery. Everyone in the town of 1,000 people is required to have a PO box.

The claim was made that there is a Constitutional obligation to deliver the mail, and that's incorrect.

**LordofHats**

cuda1179 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
The US Postal Service is an awkward institution in large part because it is a constitutional obligation. The government has to provide mail service per the Postal Clause (it's actually one of the only government institutions explicitly brought into existence by the Constitution), and even setting aside the constitutional issue it provides an essential service that is horribly undervalued today but still essential. People need a way to move gak from point a to point b. The struggles of the postal service are largely the result of idiotic mismanagement, underfunding, and just horribly goal setting.

The goal should not be for USPS to be "competitive" with privately owned deliverers. USPS should be refocused on doing something isn't profitable for private industry but still needs to be done; general mail. Let UPS and FedEx or whoever mail all the boxes. They're better at it and more effective, but neither of them gain much from more general paper mail service. Additionally USPS provides an essential function of mailing services at all; management of mailing protocol which is only getting more complicated with rising population. They're literally running out of road names in some zip codes! Gotta fix that gak XD

You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

I'm not misquoting anything. The Government is obligated to provide postal service, which is why it has provided postal service for the past 250 years. Feel free to join the club of Constitutional revisionists who think they've found the great syntactic loop hole everyone else missed but there's no one on earth who will buy that an obligation to establish a postal service doesn't include an obligation to deliver. There's actually zero case law on the matter because there's never been any real question that the postal service is expected to actually deliver mail to the designated recipient. That's the entire point of mail service.

If anything this obligation actually allows some people to have mail service they otherwise wouldn't because there are places with so few people to service FedEx and UPS don't operate at all, but USPS does. There are of course some people with no service at all because they live that far out there, but an social obligation has never been interpreted as an absolute. if you live 50 miles from the nearest other human being you're probably not getting any mail, but if you live that far from civilization I suspect you don't really want any mail anyway.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
What it means is that the Government has the sole authority where and when it wants post offices, but is NOT required to put a post office anywhere or indeed to service any particular area. Random locations in fact have no right to mail delivery. A small town close to me for example has no-home delivery. Everyone in the town of 1,000 people is required to have a PO box.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. The government is constitutionally obligated to operate a postal service, even if it is not obligated to provide home delivery to every single house in the US. I don't see what the fact that the USPS can say "this area is too rural for delivery to be efficient, come get your mail at a central location" has to do with anything.

**Ash87**

cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Are you saying that it isn't true, because it certainly is.

What is true? That Clinton was willing to use the military to intervene in other countries? I don't think anyone is going to dispute this, the issue is people defending Trump after he blatantly lied about opposing any potential war and then promptly started one as soon as it was convenient. And now we have the absurdity of you defending the con man, because apparently honestly supporting the use of the military is worse than taking the same actions but lying about it long enough to get elected.

I never stated that I supported a war. I'd have preferred to keep our noses clean and far from there. If you want to hit Trump with that, go right ahead. What I'm saying is that we've been down this road before, but worse. Obama strait out promised he wouldn't enter into conflicts with countries that weren't a direct threat to us, ever. He was quicker on the draw to hit the red button than Trump has been, and Hillary towed the party line.

Trump is a bite of a turd sandwich all right, I just think Hillary would have been a turd sandwich they make you order seconds of.

I think its kind of cold at this point to use this logic. "Oh well it could be worse" when we just bombed a load of people...?

And we are, last i checked, 1+ years from the election.

Probably just better to focus on things being bad... You know, now. Fan fiction isnt relevant anymore, and despite people who voted for Trump's deepest hopes and dreams... Niether is Hillary Clinton, in a situation where we just bombed another country over something that is none of our business. If you want to talk about the election, that is fine... Kind of a dead issue, but it isn't really related to anything anymore.

Also, bombed. People. Dead.

**cuda1179**

LordofHats wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
The US Postal Service is an awkward institution in large part because it is a constitutional obligation. The government has to provide mail service per the Postal Clause (it's actually one of the only government institutions explicitly brought into existence by the Constitution), and even setting aside the constitutional issue it provides an essential service that is horribly undervalued today but still essential. People need a way to move gak from point a to point b. The struggles of the postal service are largely the result of idiotic mismanagement, underfunding, and just horribly goal setting.

The goal should not be for USPS to be "competitive" with privately owned deliverers. USPS should be refocused on doing something isn't profitable for private industry but still needs to be done; general mail. Let UPS and FedEx or whoever mail all the boxes. They're better at it and more effective, but neither of them gain much from more general paper mail service. Additionally USPS provides an essential function of mailing services at all; management of mailing protocol which is only getting more complicated with rising population. They're literally running out of road names in some zip codes! Gotta fix that gak XD

You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

I'm not misquoting anything. The Government is obligated to provide postal service, which is why it has provided postal service for the past 250 years. Feel free to join the club of Constitutional revisionists who think they've found the great syntactic loop hole everyone else missed but there's no one on earth who will buy that an obligation to establish a postal service doesn't include an obligation to deliver. There's actually zero case law on the matter because there's never been any real question that the postal service is expected to actually deliver mail to the designated recipient. That's the entire point of mail service.

This entire point was actually debated in Congress before. People were specifically asked where this was stated, and no one had an answer. I will agree that there is no case law on it, but that goes both ways. You stated there is an obligation to establish a postal service. Please tell me where that obligation exists. Once again, the government has the right to establish postal service, not the obligation.

**Dreadwinter**

cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
You are actually somewhat misquoting the Postal Clause. It gives the Government the sole ability to open post office locations, but contrary to popular belief does NOT require mail delivery to any location.

I think we can acknowledge the absurdity of opening post offices that do not deliver mail, and that actually moving the mail from place to place is implicit in that clause. This is not YMDC, we don't need absurd RAW nitpicking.

What it means is that the Government has the sole authority where and when it wants post offices, but is NOT required to put a post office anywhere or indeed to service any particular area. Random locations in fact have no right to mail delivery. A small town close to me for example has no-home delivery. Everyone in the town of 1,000 people is required to have a PO box.

The claim was made that there is a Constitutional obligation to deliver the mail, and that's incorrect.

How does the mail get to the PO box?

**cuda1179**

Ash87 wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Are you saying that it isn't true, because it certainly is.

What is true? That Clinton was willing to use the military to intervene in other countries? I don't think anyone is going to dispute this, the issue is people defending Trump after he blatantly lied about opposing any potential war and then promptly started one as soon as it was convenient. And now we have the absurdity of you defending the con man, because apparently honestly supporting the use of the military is worse than taking the same actions but lying about it long enough to get elected.

I never stated that I supported a war. I'd have preferred to keep our noses clean and far from there. If you want to hit Trump with that, go right ahead. What I'm saying is that we've been down this road before, but worse. Obama strait out promised he wouldn't enter into conflicts with countries that weren't a direct threat to us, ever. He was quicker on the draw to hit the red button than Trump has been, and Hillary towed the party line.

Trump is a bite of a turd sandwich all right, I just think Hillary would have been a turd sandwich they make you order seconds of.

I think its kind of cold at this point to use this logic. "Oh well it could be worse" when we just bombed a load of people...?

And we are, last i checked, 1+ years from the election.

Probably just better to focus on things being bad... You know, now. Fan fiction isnt relevant anymore, and despite people who voted for Trump's deepest hopes and dreams... Niether is Hillary Clinton, in a situation where we just bombed another country over something that is none of our business. If you want to talk about the election, that is fine... Kind of a dead issue, but it isn't really related to anything anymore.

Also, bombed. People. Dead.

Just to be clear here, I'm not the one that brought up the last election, that was Peregrine talking about how we elected a "con man" as opposed the alternative. And yes, we may have fallen for lies. Lies that probably weren't as bad as a reality that was readily waiting for us. And are you really stating that something that is worse, isn't worse? Listen, I think war is stupid. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm totally with you when it comes to the loss of lives. Being pragmatic is just that though, it's not being "cold".

**LordofHats**

cuda1179 wrote:
I will agree that there is no case law on it, but that goes both ways.

It really doesn't. Since the original post service established in 1791 to the present the US has always provided delivery of mail because that's an intrinsic and unavoidable part of what a postal service does. You might as well argue for a cable service that expects you to dig up your own yard and connect to the cable box yourself. There's no case law because arguing otherwise is basically crank.

You stated there is an obligation to establish a postal service. Please tell me where that obligation exists. Once again, the government has the right to establish postal service, not the obligation.

The vesting clause, which is interpreted as mandating that the powers granted to Congress are its inherent responsibilities. You know. Like providing for a navy. Or collecting taxes. Not exercising the enumerated powers is by definition unconstitutional which is the road block that has prevented Congress from ending government provided postal service since day one and they've been trying on and off since day one (literally). They have those powers because their explicitly expected to provide those "service."

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
Just to be clear here, I'm not the one that brought up the last election, that was Peregrine talking about how we elected a "con man" as opposed the alternative. And yes, we may have fallen for lies. Lies that probably weren't as bad as a reality that was readily waiting for us. And are you really stating that something that is worse, isn't worse? Listen, I think war is stupid. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm totally with you when it comes to the loss of lives. Being pragmatic is just that though, it's not being "cold".

What exactly do you think Clinton would be doing that would be so much worse? Because as far as I can see Trump is doing the exact same thing that Obama did before him, and Bush before Obama, and likely the same things that Clinton would have done. Except now we're supposed to forget that he was elected on a promise of "I'm not going to start a war, Clinton is dangerous and will provoke Russia", and overlook the clumsy manner in which he is going about his bombing campaign.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Just to be clear here, I'm not the one that brought up the last election, that was Peregrine talking about how we elected a "con man" as opposed the alternative. And yes, we may have fallen for lies. Lies that probably weren't as bad as a reality that was readily waiting for us. And are you really stating that something that is worse, isn't worse? Listen, I think war is stupid. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm totally with you when it comes to the loss of lives. Being pragmatic is just that though, it's not being "cold".

What exactly do you think Clinton would be doing that would be so much worse? Because as far as I can see Trump is doing the exact same thing that Obama did before him, and Bush before Obama, and likely the same things that Clinton would have done. Except now we're supposed to forget that he was elected on a promise of "I'm not going to start a war, Clinton is dangerous and will provoke Russia", and overlook the clumsy manner in which he is going about his bombing campaign.

Bush got us into wars, that's a fact.

After Bush we were expecting Obama to keep his promise to not only NOT start more conflict, but to get us out of the ones we were all ready in. He didn't speed up any withdrawals, and in fact got us into several more conflicts. Clinton was there with him, justifying every action.

THAT is what I would be afraid of, that not only would we be attacking Syria, but a couple other countries too.

**NinthMusketeer**

Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

As for "whataboutisms", once again, I'm not the one that brought that whole line of discussion up.

**Peregrine**

cuda1179 wrote:
However, what does he lie about?

Here's a relevant lie: "I'm not going to get involved in Syria. You need to vote for me because Clinton is going to do it, anger Russia, and risk WWIII."

And NinthMusketeer is right about the absurdity of this situation. We elect a con man and his supporters, rather than admit that they bought the lies of a con man and made a mistake, defend him and insist that somehow the alternative was going to be worse.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
However, what does he lie about?

Here's a relevant lie: "I'm not going to get involved in Syria. You need to vote for me because Clinton is going to do it, anger Russia, and risk WWIII."

And NinthMusketeer is right about the absurdity of this situation. We elect a con man and his supporters, rather than admit that they bought the lies of a con man and made a mistake, defend him and insist that somehow the alternative was going to be worse.

As this was supposed to be a "how was he worse than Obama" question that was asked, Tell me again how that's worse than "I promise not to get into any armed conflict with any country that isn't a direct, real, and imminent threat to the US", then bomb 7 countries?

**Voss**

cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

Congrats, you got the least.

**Wolfblade**

cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
[
That's a rather impressive straw man you just built there. Nowhere did I say that the USPS can't be criticized or improved, I only said that judging a government service as if it was a for-profit business is an absurd standard. Things like the USPS not paying property taxes are not valid complaints.

Maybe I want to compare the Post office to a private company is because of the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act, which eliminated the old Post Office Department, replaced it with the US Postal Service. The act was intended to make the USPS self-financing from its own revenues, and to make it an independent, non-political public service. In essence the Post office was SUPPOSED to be run like a for-profit business.

Actually iirc, it was supposed to only ever break even, so it would be self sustaining without generating a profit.

**NinthMusketeer**

I chuckled when I read "what does he lie about?"

**cuda1179**

Voss wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

Congrats, you got the least.

No, Obama's was worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read "what does he lie about?"

Would you like to get into a contest about what campaign promises were kept and broken?

**NinthMusketeer**

cuda1179 wrote:
Voss wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

Congrats, you got the least.

No, Obama's was worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read "what does he lie about?"

Would you like to get into a contest about what campaign promises were kept and broken?

No, for multiple reasons. First among them is that I am not going to attempt an evidence based discussion with someone who has demonstrated they are ignoring it. It goes right back to what I said above. If you begin arguing in good faith based on reality I will happily respond.

**Wolfblade**

cuda1179 wrote:
Voss wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

Congrats, you got the least.

No, Obama's was worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read "what does he lie about?"

Would you like to get into a contest about what campaign promises were kept and broken?

How was Obama's worse? At least major policy decisions weren't made over twitter, then change an hour later, then changed a further hour later.

Also, I don't think trump has kept any campaign promises really, I mean, Mexico clearly won't be paying for a wall, so what else?
-Term limits for politicians? Yeah, that'll happen.
-Ban on Muslim immigrants? Yeah, that'll fly.
-Not take vacations? I mean, he has only golfed around 100 times now.
-Release his tax returns? Still waiting...
-Child care tax credits? Yeah, didn't happen.
-Save the coal industry? I think it's literally impossible, I mean coal is long outdated for most modern uses.

I guess he did however keep his promises about:
-Removing federal regulations (I mean, look at his EPA, DOE and FCC picks...).
-Canceling the Paris Agreement? Yup, sure did! Who needs an Earth anyways right?
-Cut taxes for everyone, just way more for the wealthy business owners (like himself, weird!)

Of course, I'm not expecting any actual information or facts from you based on your past few replies, but hey, maybe.

**NinthMusketeer**

With all due respect Wolf, trying to respond to delusion with facts is only goong to drag the thread down. He is arguing in bad faith; call him on it and move on. Raising factual arguments not only provides delusional positions more legitimacy than they deserve but serves to deflect from the core of the argument which is really evidence-denial.

**cuda1179**

Wolfblade wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Voss wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.

Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about? Frankly I don't care if his inauguration had a small turnout. I cared more about that "most transparent administration in history".

Congrats, you got the least.

No, Obama's was worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read "what does he lie about?"

Would you like to get into a contest about what campaign promises were kept and broken?

How was Obama's worse? At least major policy decisions weren't made over twitter, then change an hour later, then changed a further hour later.

Also, I don't think trump has kept any campaign promises really, I mean, Mexico clearly won't be paying for a wall, so what else?
-Term limits for politicians? Yeah, that'll happen.
-Ban on Muslim immigrants? Yeah, that'll fly.
-Not take vacations? I mean, he has only golfed around 100 times now.
-Release his tax returns? Still waiting...
-Child care tax credits? Yeah, didn't happen.
-Save the coal industry? I think it's literally impossible, I mean coal is long outdated for most modern uses.

I guess he did however keep his promises about:
-Removing federal regulations (I mean, look at his EPA, DOE and FCC picks...).
-Canceling the Paris Agreement? Yup, sure did! Who needs an Earth anyways right?
-Cut taxes for everyone, just way more for the wealthy business owners (like himself, weird!)

Of course, I'm not expecting any actual information or facts from you based on your past few replies, but hey, maybe.

Pulling us out of the Pan Pacific Partnership
Putting his foot down on ISIS in Iraq
getting tougher on immigration
Raise the stock market
Bring back manufacturing (which did see a net gain in the last year)
Come to think of it, didn't coal slightly grow too?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's add to that.

Unemployment at a 17 year low.

Putting forward a rather successful international effort to combat MS-13 and 18th street gangs.

approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Supported Obama's stance against Chemical weapons

has taken hardlines against Russia when they've tried to violate treaties.

recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

got Nato nations to actually pay $12billion more for security

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's take a look at that Paris agreement we pulled out of. Remember when Bush pulled out of the Kyoto agreements? The same thing was said then.......however, it allowed new energy investments which somehow allowed the US to lower it's pollution MORE than Europe. The same could happen again.

**Wolfblade**

Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
Started a trade war with China, then declared we lost.
Tougher on immigration? You mean those Muslim bans that are being challenged in court?
Manufacturing is by and large gone. Other countries have a cheaper labour force with fewer regulations.
Coal might have had a slightly up year (771 jobs...) But it's not coming back any time soon.
Obama put his foot down on ISIS too, yet I don't see you praising him. (For reference Trump is basically using Obama's plan that he set in place iirc)
Unemployment was because of Obama's policies
MS-13 is not as big of a threat as Trump wants to pretend they are. Dangerous and bad yes, but not the all consuming threat he makes them out to be.
Jerusalem was a horrible move that raised tensions and undermined any negotiations in the middle east.

As for the Paris agreement, doubtful as the head of EPA will be busy dismantling it.

**cuda1179**

Wolfblade wrote:
Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
Started a trade war with China, then declared we lost.
Tougher on immigration? You mean those Muslim bans that are being challenged in court?
Manufacturing is by and large gone. Other countries have a cheaper labour force with fewer regulations.
Coal might have had a slightly up year (771 jobs...) But it's not coming back any time soon.
Obama put his foot down on ISIS too, yet I don't see you praising him. (For reference Trump is basically using Obama's plan that he set in place iirc)

Tougher on immigration. putting NG troops on the border, putting more pressure on immigration courts, building a wall (even I admit this is the worst of the bunch, but is something), increasing deportations, and taking some of the reins off ICE

Manufacturing is well past its prime, but it did slightly grow in the last year.

I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

**Wolfblade**

NG at the border is expensive, and they're there until the wall is built (which Mexico will pay for right?)

And if you looked at the facts, Obama was actually pretty strict on deportations, and 2016 had more deportations than 2017 (despite 2017 having ICE arrest something like 10% more immigrants with out a criminal record)

And immigration courts need more the just pressure put on then, they need to be looked at when a 3yo is allowed to represent themself in court.

Also still taking credit from Obama and foisting it onto Trump I see. Obama does most of the work, but hey it ended with Trump so clearly it was all him right? The only reason it's gone so well still is because that's one area Trump didn't try to meddle with.

Plus, wasn't 2025 the estimated elimination date of ISIS? Not just their last strong point, but all of it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but ISIS is still around.

I guess we can give Trump credit for the most dysfunctional white house ever, and higher turnover rate in history of the white house.