Trump's Promises

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Fair enough...  except in this thread you made no mention of Obama care until after you landed into to me.  Your discussion with JAG either happened elsewhere or after.  I am sorry I am not a mystical mind reader that can divine the nuances of your position before articulate it, but that is the way it is.  And just because you have talked about Trump all over the place, doesn't mean you get to dictate the boundaries of the discussion or force us to accept only your understanding of what Trump says and means.

And guess what... I listened to Trump... he never said Repeal and Replace.  He said Repeal full stop.  Only after he won and after he talked to Obama that he came back with saying that some part make sense... Now his followers (once again) are trying to re-write history of what he said, by saying that his promise (the subject of this thread) was really and always Repeal and Replace. 

I thought my first statement was clear... you're not thinking outside of the regulated box - regulation is, today, Obamacare.  In any case, I apologize for not being clear enough.

And, Trump's rallies are LITTERED with Repeal and Replace mantras.  Every single one where he mentioned healthcare.  This started when Ben Carson joined his team... so that was waaaaay back, not too long after Super Tuesday of the primaries.  Ben Carson's input to the Trump healthcare campaign issue is the HSA, the standardized healthcare record, and the pre-existing conditions that was on the Carson healthcare platform that got added to Trump's after he joined.  The standardized healthcare record and pre-existing conditions exist in the Obamacare solution.

Edited November 22, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

Now, Trump has come up with a new list of promises for the first 100 days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xX_KaStFT8

On trade:

I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country. Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.

On energy:

I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal — creating many millions of high-paying jobs.

On regulation:

I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.

On national security:

I will ask the Department of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyberattacks, and all other form of attacks.

On immigration:

I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

On ethics reform:

As part of our plan to drain the swamp, we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the administration — and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

 

OK.  I have to admit, I like these.

[Guest Godless]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

On energy:

I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal — creating many millions of high-paying jobs.

 

So we're doubling down on archaic energy methods? Cool. Are we going to bring back telephone operators next? Think of the jobs! There will be so many jobs! And it's going to be wonderful!

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

So we're doubling down on archaic energy methods? Cool. Are we going to bring back telephone operators next? Think of the jobs! There will be so many jobs! And it's going to be wonderful!

You are correct @Godless. Most factory type jobs are becoming obsolete because robots do them better than humans. Think about this-a robot doesn't get drunk the night before and call in sick with a hangover. It's blunt, but it's the truth. 

Coal might be different because it's more regulations than robots that have just decimated the industry. Other than that you are dead on. 

[Guest Godless]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

On regulation:

I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.

 

 

Vague much? What are we talking about here? Financial sector? Industrial sector? FIFA?

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are correct @Godless. Most factory type jobs are becoming obsolete because robots do them better than humans. Think about this-a robot doesn't get drunk the night before and call in sick with a hangover. It's blunt, but it's the truth. 

Coal might be different because it's more regulations than robots that have just decimated the industry. Other than that you are dead on. 

My point was that clean, renewable energy should be a bigger focus than keeping the coal industry alive for the sake of jobs.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

My point was that clean, renewable energy should be a bigger focus than keeping the coal industry alive for the sake of jobs.

I agree.

To me the bigger point is that many manual labor jobs are becoming obsolete and no one, including Trump can wave a wand and bring them back. 

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

My point was that clean, renewable energy should be a bigger focus than keeping the coal industry alive for the sake of jobs.

Anyone who has studied actually studied "renewable" energy knows it is a complete sham. Renew with what, wind, water, solar?  Ha, you can't possibly harvest enough of the sun's energy to replace coal, oil, gas, etc.

The only real renewable that has great potential is nuclear.

One of the coolest and eye-opening college course I took was an in-depth look at solar energy and then another class about power generation (both in hard engineering classes).

The maximum efficiency that is possible from solar power is at most 26%, i.e. we can only harvest at best 26% of the sun's energy.  It is scientifically impossible here on the planet to do better than that.  

All these "green" energy crap, you just trade one problem for another.  You want wind power, well guess what you have to deal with hundreds of thousands of acres of giant windmills that aren't exactly pleasing to the eye and could be used for more useful things like crops or cattle.  You want solar power, well guess what you get to deal with massive huge solar plants that generate a ton of heat and light, so much so that migratory birds that fly across the solar panels will roast to death.  You want water power, guess what you get to deal with massive dams which change the composition of rivers, etc. cause problems with fish.

There is no free lunch, you just trade one problem for another.  The only reason why "renewable" energies don't have as many "problems" is b/c they aren't implemented on a large enough scale.  Renewable only account for something like 5% of the total energy needed by the US (and I'm probably high on that figure-I think it was closer to 1% 5 years ago, but say it is 5% just for giggles and grins).  Just to get it to a significant figure would require implementation on a large scale that would bring all these problems into focus.

The only energy source that can solve these problems is nuclear, but thanks to Greenpeace nuts, nuclear has a bad rap.

This "clean energy" crap is just that a load of crap.

Edited November 23, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Anyone who has studied actually studied "renewable" energy knows it is a complete sham. Renew with what, wind, water, solar?  Ha, you can't possibly harvest enough of the sun's energy to replace coal, oil, gas, etc.

The only real renewable that has great potential is nuclear.

One of the coolest and eye-opening college course I took was an in-depth look at solar energy and then another class about power generation (both in hard engineering classes).

The maximum efficiency that is possible from solar power is at most 26%, i.e. we can only harvest at best 26% of the sun's energy.  It is scientifically impossible here on the planet to do better than that.  

All these "green" energy crap, you just trade one problem for another.  You want wind power, well guess what you have to deal with hundreds of thousands of acres of giant windmills that aren't exactly pleasing to the eye and could be used for more useful things like crops or cattle.  You want solar power, well guess what you get to deal with massive huge solar plants that generate a ton of heat and light, so much so that migratory birds that fly across the solar panels will roast to death.  You want water power, guess what you get to deal with massive dams which change the composition of rivers, etc. cause problems with fish.

There is no free lunch, you just trade one problem for another.  The only reason why "renewable" energies don't have as many "problems" is b/c they aren't implemented on a large enough scale.  Renewable only account for something like 5% of the total energy needed by the US (and I'm probably high on that figure-I think it was closer to 1% 5 years ago, but say it is 5% just for giggles and grins).  Just to get it to a significant figure would require implementation on a large scale that would bring all these problems into focus.

The only energy source that can solve these problems is nuclear, but thanks to Greenpeace nuts, nuclear has a bad rap.

This "clean energy" crap is just that a load of crap.

Ralph Nader called. He told me your membership for the Green Party is about to expire and you need to renew. 

(kidding, kidding) 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Anyone who has studied actually studied "renewable" energy knows it is a complete sham. Renew with what, wind, water, solar?  Ha, you can't possibly harvest enough of the sun's energy to replace coal, oil, gas, etc.

The only real renewable that has great potential is nuclear.

While I agree with everything else you said, these two statements need modification.

Technically we CAN harvest enough of the sun's energy.  That is, it is mathematically possible. But it is NOT socially possible because of the choices we'd have to make.

Nuclear is not renewable.  While we have enough nuclear resources to power us for a good thousand years or more, it is still finite.  The sun is the one source that will outlast all others by several orders of magnitude.  It will certainly last until the mortal life of the earth, or until we invent space travel.  Then we can use fusion power to collect deuterium and tritium from space and have a virtually endless resource of fusion power throughout the universe.  Then the greenies will complain that the fusion power is causing harm to the vacuum of space and we should cease all space travel.

And, YES, Nuclear fuels are about the cleanest energy source we have.  People don't realize that if you take gasoline, or natural gas, or ethanol, or anything else that burns, the quantity of nuclear material that is released from such will be several times more than the nuclear material generated by a nuclear power plant for the same amount of energy.

[Larry Cotrell]

Now Trump is backing down on prosecuting Hillary. 

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways."

What happened to what he said in my favorite moment of the debates:

"You'd be in jail!"

[estradling75]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And, Trump's rallies are LITTERED with Repeal and Replace mantras.  Every single one where he mentioned healthcare.  This started when Ben Carson joined his team... so that was waaaaay back, not too long after Super Tuesday of the primaries.  Ben Carson's input to the Trump healthcare campaign issue is the HSA, the standardized healthcare record, and the pre-existing conditions that was on the Carson healthcare platform that got added to Trump's after he joined.  The standardized healthcare record and pre-existing conditions exist in the Obamacare solution.

Once again you make my point while disagreeing with me.

Once again this is thread is about Trumps promises, which means the words that came out of his mouth while campaigning.  You talk about Ben Carson and what he did... But we didn't elect Ben Carson, we elected Trump.  And Trump's promise from his own mouth was to "Repeal Obama Care."  Now it would have been really easy for him to say "Replace Obama Care" or even "Repeal and Replace Obama Care"  Both of which carry the idea that you are trying to sell now.  But he did not, which means he didn't know/care about Ben Carson's outline (unlikely) or he knew he couldn't sell it. 

Since the promise from his own mouth (and not the fine print crafted by Carson) was "Repeal" Obama Care not "Replace" Obama Care I will consider it a broken promise if all we get is a re-shuffling and re-branding.

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Once again you make my point while disagreeing with me.

Once again this is thread is about Trumps promises, which means the words that came out of his mouth while campaigning.  You talk about Ben Carson and what he did... But we didn't elect Ben Carson, we elected Trump.  And Trump's promise from his own mouth was to "Repeal Obama Care."  Now it would have been really easy for him to say "Replace Obama Care" or even "Repeal and Replace Obama Care"  Both of which carry the idea that you are trying to sell now.  But he did not, which means he didn't know/care about Ben Carson's outline (unlikely) or he knew he couldn't sell it. 

Since the promise from his own mouth (and not the fine print crafted by Carson) was "Repeal" Obama Care not "Replace" Obama Care I will consider it a broken promise if all we get is a re-shuffling and re-branding.

I don't know what it is about you and Carb... but I can't seem to get myself understood by you.

What about this sentence is confusing?  Trump has always had "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" in his speeches.  See, this just proves to me that y'all never really paid attention to Trump's campaign.  You just say he is racist, he is sexist, he is this and that like the Media says and never paid any attention to what exactly he says.

Here is a speech he gave on Obamacare in December of 2015.  Almost a year ago.  This is before any of the primary elections occurred.  Ben Carson joining his team in March added detail to this campaign position of replacing Obamacare with something that included HSA and pre-existing conditions like I told you.

FROM HIS MOUTH within the first 30 seconds of this video: 

 

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know what it is about you and Carb... but I can't seem to get myself understood by you.

It would help if you stop jumping to tell us how wrong we were and attacking us...  And then complain that you were being misunderstood when we push back.  If you don't like how it ends up then stop initiating it.

 

 

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

What about this sentence is confusing?  Trump has always had "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" in his speeches.  See, this just proves to me that y'all never really paid attention to Trump's campaign.  You just say he is racist, he is sexist, he is this and that like the Media says and never paid any attention to what exactly he says.

Here is a speech he gave on Obamacare in December of 2015.  Almost a year ago.  This is before any of the primary elections occurred.  Ben Carson joining his team in March added detail to this campaign position of replacing Obamacare with something that included HSA and pre-existing conditions like I told you.

FROM HIS MOUTH within the first 30 seconds of this video: 

 

Thank you for finally posting an example of him saying it.  (Not his supporters).

Now how many examples are there of him saying simply Repeal Obama Care compared to him saying Repeal and Replace? (given that you had to go a year back to find this one)

Edited November 23, 2016 by estradling75

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know what it is about you and Carb... but I can't seem to get myself understood by you.

Hey, don't bring me into this one.  I haven't said a thing about the repeal and replace argument.

On the other thread we completely agreed, but you decided to argue about how much we agreed.  Look at it.  I never refuted anything you said about drones.  I confirmed it.  But you took it as disagreement.  That really confused me.

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hey, don't bring me into this one.  I haven't said a thing about the repeal and replace argument.

On the other thread we completely agreed, but you decided to argue about how much we agreed.  Look at it.  I never refuted anything you said about drones.  I confirmed it.  But you took it as disagreement.  That really confused me.

Like I said... I can't seem to get myself understood by you...

And look at that... we keep on repeating ourselves...

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

It would help if you stop jumping to tell us how wrong we were and attacking us...  And then complain that you were being misunderstood when we push back.  If you don't like how it ends up then stop initiating it.

 

 

Thank you for finally posting an example of him saying it.  (Not his supporters).

Now how many examples are there of him saying simply Repeal Obama Care compared to him saying Repeal and Replace? (given that you had to go a year back to find this one)

None.  Every single rally he has that touches on healthcare is REPEAL AND REPLACE.  I went a year back to show you how long ago he's held this position.  You want me to post every single rally before you believe me?

By the way, when you are wrong, I tell you you are wrong.  You can defend yourself and tell me why you think you are right.  I've followed this election (and every US election since Reagan) closely.  I have no problem with you debating me.  I have no illusions of grandeur that I am always right.  I welcome you proving I'm wrong.  I have a problem when I say something and it is not understood.  English is only my 3rd language and my confidence in the language starts to crumble when things I say that I thought were clear doesn't make a dent in understanding.

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

The problem is... that you equate "Agreeing" with "Understanding" as in I don't agree with you it must be because I don't understand you.  This is different from being wrong.

For example I thought the Trump's position was "Repeal Obama care."  This was a position I agreed with.  You have showed evidence that his position (at least once) was "Repeal and Replace." That is once more then I was aware of so I am willing to acknowledge I could be wrong in that assessment (although given how often he reverses his position and how many other had the exact same understanding shows fundamental problems he has getting his message out clearly) That being said I move from agreement with what I thought it was to disagreement to what you say it really is.

As for communication comments like this do you no favors

On 11/21/2016 at 10:23 AM, anatess2 said:

Okay dude.  Whatever.  You make less sense than a burlap bag.  But, hey, keep on that track because it's really great communication.  Not.  I have better things to do.

You disagreeing with me, fine... You not understand me, again fine...  You being done talking to me, also fine...

You insulting me, not fine.  Not conductive to your stated goal of communication.

 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

You insulting me, not fine.  Not conductive to your stated goal of communication.

 

 

Okay, come join Carb and me in the sandbox "Mom!  He hit me first!..."

My statement was a response to your condescension (I would call it an insult but I need no safe space).  If you can't take it, don't dish it.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 0:20 PM, estradling75 said:

Well thank you for confirming the point I was trying to make...  and then challenging for not making a point that I did not intend to make.

 

 

[estradling75]

45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, come join Carb and me in the sandbox "Mom!  He hit me first!..."

My statement was a response to your condescension (I would call it an insult but I need no safe space).  If you can't take it, don't dish it.

 

Nice to see just how serious you are about your desire to have better communication

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

Nice to see just how serious you are about your desire to have better communication

While you offer better communication.  Love it.

As in this case I offered proof of why you're wrong, it's in your court to play nice.

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

While you offer better communication.  Love it.

As in this case I offered proof of why you're wrong, it's in your court to play nice.

Selective memory... the our very first interaction in this thread was you jumping all over me for saying parts of Obama Care can't be selectively repealed...   Your proof.. it can be repealed if you make it part of a complete package of reformation.  And Idea that I showed in the very post you claimed to disagree with. You were wrong it was in your court to play nice but you did not

Then we had a disagreement about Trumps position on the subject... which I acknowledged that you presented evidence that I was wrong.

Then you complain that you can't communicate, but instead of taking it upon yourself to fix the problem you are having, you twist it to make it my problem (and bring @Carborendum into it).  I can't fix you or the problems you state you have, only you can.  All the deflection in the world will not change that

But I grow bored with your tactics.. so I am going to do what you threatened but didn't do... Be done.

 

[anatess2]

44 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Selective memory... the our very first interaction in this thread was you jumping all over me for saying parts of Obama Care can't be selectively@Carborendum repealed...   Your proof.. it can be repealed if you make it part of a complete package of reformation.  And Idea that I showed in the very post you claimed to disagree with. You were wrong it was in your court to play nice but you did not.

 

 

You have not proved me wrong.  I told you that your first post only discussed solutions within the current regulations afterwhich I gave you solutions outside of the current regulations from the Trump campaign.  You replied by telling me I'm wrong about Trump having that in his platform completely abandoning my points about solutions outside of the current regulations that may not have the same challenges as the ones you posted.

But, I know you.  You don't give up even when the proof is staring you in the face.  That's fine.  Good thing you're done.  I get to have the last word!  Yeay!  <hugs my bunny pillow basking in the afterglow>

[Guest]

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

OH MY GOSH!  I think that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen -- outside of some of Mirkwood's Halloween posts :).