Trump’s 30 biggest broken promises.

I was born a year after he came into office.

Wasn't really paying attention to his dealing with congress at the time.

 

My history is pretty simple...I’m a straight science guy who trusts the institutions and conclusions drawn from them over time. Where legitimate institutions conflict, I will come down on the conservative one. I luv math as you can tell by my reluctance to correct my vocabulary. If you knew my actual history and employment, you’d think I was a Republican.

 

Ha ha.....good one. I have no answer to that l

 

I got my degree in biology so we are the same!

But I hate math.

I am neither republican nor democrat, I am extremely conservative bordering on fascism.

The spectrum doesn't go far enough to the right incorporate my views.

So now when we debate in the future we both know where the other is coming from.

Pleasure to meet you sir!

 

That’s funny. I do have a minor in biology, but a major in math.

Quick comment. It would drive me crazy being in the same boat as a Christian , anti evolutionary who can’t see the hypicracy of denying Gregor Mendel. How do you enlightened republicans mange it ? My theory is, they call themselves libertarians.

 

I won't deny the extremely mild recession under the first Bush.

The recession that began under Bush II was indeed a massive one. Though the recovery that President Obama takes credit for also began due to the policies of Bush II.

The "surpluses" that Bush II was "given" by the Clinton Admin. was largely temporary and illusionary.

 

I agree with that. He signed the bailout. I had trouble with it being a (two page) request which put little to no responsibility on the banks. No one can argue they used some of the bailout money in part as bonuses and delayed over a year refunding the bankrupted Public. When obama did the bailout for the auto industry, republicans were apoplectic with the regulations.....but the industry did stay afloat and with much less loss to the tax payer.
That was socialism at its finest. .

 

Then I’m sure you know that until the yearly deficit is bellow zero, the debt still grows expinentually. You should know also that 2.6 trillion of the debt is from the SS trust fund. With the intent of the Gop to start cutting entitlements, it seems rather ridiculous to think that Trump ever intended to do anything but make hinself richer. But, you have platitudes.

 

Of course, when you cut taxes as much as Bush did while processing two wars, I guess you can call it illusionary. But the illusion was on the part of Bush thinking that it wouldn’t grow a deficit. How is that so hard to understand ? It’s called “subtraction.” Bush, for several years, lived on the same good economy that Clinton gave him. The pattern repeats itself now. The yearly deficit has gone up nearly 250 billion in just the first year under Trump and the generous new tax cuts. Trump raved how good the economy was doing for him...the first week he was in Office before the tax cuts.....why fk it up ? Unless, it was to payback all the donors to the GOP...which it is. Trickle down never worked and thinking it magically will after doing it over and over, is the big illusion.

 

Actually it isn't all true but be fair. Most of the promises are beyond his control. He should have said he would try to do these things. Also, the article might have defined the time frame they consider appropriate for these actions to happen. Pure partisan nonsense not worth quoting.

 

Clinton had "surpluses" in large part by starving the U.S. military of funds for nearly a decade. IIRC after adjusting for inflation military spending dropped by something like 30% during the Clinton Admin. This was an unsubstainable situation.

 

That’s bs...show the evidence.do you really know what 30% is....a rediculous claim. It complete disregards that Reagan jacked up military spending unecssarily by 43%. Many billions in star wars un related research. You don’t know math do you. He limited the amount of INCREASE as he did to all budgets to more reasonable limits.
And still, spending more then the next five nations combined. He nearly put limits on spending increases. I guess Bush didn’t think it was too starved. He started two wars with it. If you know anything about the military, it takes years to change a mission and supplies. But you may not know that if you didn’t actually participate.

 

The argument then is, he had little control over his own party ?
Are we now claiming he can’t get anything done with the entire gov was under his control ?
Do you think it’s going to get easier ?
He also had some he could have started with executive order, if he knew how to write one....the ones he did got hung up in court. Supreme incompetence or lies, take your pick..

 

The Strategic Defense Initiative did not cost that much money compared to the remainder of the budget. Reagan was intent on winning the Cold War which the U.S. did which is what allowed the U.S. to reap a so called "peace dividend" in the 1990s in the first place.

Spending "more than the next five nations combined" is a completely irrelevant statistic.

And regards to President Bush II:

1) Overall, President Bush II did not fund the U.S. military adequately either.
2) In the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. engaged in a massive rearmament of basic munitions. Small arms ammunition, basic bombs, JDAM kits, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

I know the plant in Oklahoma (not far from where I live) that actually builds most of the bombs used by the U.S. military (the actual explosives) was operating three shifts full time for over a year and adding capacity in 2002 as fast as possible.

 

Why, because you say it is ?

 

www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/

Year: 1993
Military Spending: $278,510,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,409,392,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 19.76%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $417,765,000,000

Year: 1994
Military Spending: $268,577,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,461,766,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 18.37%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $392,122,000,000

Year: 1995
Military Spending: $259,487,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,515,753,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 17.12%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $368,472,000,000

Year: 1996
Military Spending: $253,196,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,560,486,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 16.23%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $349,410,000,000

Year: 1997
Military Spending: $258,262,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,601,124,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 16.13%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $348,654,000,000

Year: 1998
Military Spending: $255,793,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,652,463,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 15.48%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $340,205,000,000

Year: 1999
Military Spending: $261,196,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,701,849,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 15.35%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $339,555,000,000

Year: 2000
Military Spending: $281,028,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,788,957,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 15.71%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $354,095,000,000

Year: 2001
Military Spending: $290,185,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $1,862,906,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 15.58%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $354,026,000,000


Correction: An inflation adjusted 16% decline in military spending during the Clinton Admin. But that still amounts to some 63 billion dollars. Which was a substantial chunk of the so called "surplus".

This despite the fact that President Clinton launched military operations against more countries than his successor, President Bush did.

 

Well, I spent 10 years in the military. The most important monies are spent on salaries to retain the best people, training and modernization. Clinton and Obama were into those then very expensive surface vessels. Ground ordinance is minuscule compared to other items that are cheaper, more effective...like drones instead of fighters and rail guns instead or ordinance and special forces instead of large ground forces.

 

16% is more reasonable then 30%...
Especially considering Reagan’s expenses.

 

The differences between Clinton/ Obama era on defense and the GOP can be summed up in this exchange between Obama and Romney .

>
“Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917,” Romney declared. “Our air force is older and smaller than any time since it’s founded in 1947.”

Then President Barack Obama struck back, quickly sinking Romney’s rhetorical battleship and zinging the former Massachusetts governor as woefully out of touch on modern military matters.

“I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works,” Obama said. “You mentioned our Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have ships that go under water,” Obama deadpanned.<

 

6 years left unless the Democrats murder him.

 

Except that President Obama is a complete idiot:

1) The U.S. military still uses horses. See U.S. special forces in Afghanistan.
2) Ships might well be several times more capable than in years past.

But one ship cannot be in two places at the same time. Same with combat aircraft.

 

Yes, Trump has failed to keep some of his promises. Some of that is Trumps fault. Some is the fault of the Republican Congress.

But even if Trump accomplishes none of his promises, he is a million times better than Hilary.

Keeping Hilary out of the White House is a success that all by itself makes the Trump administration a success.

 

I have no idea what your personal situation is, and I wouldn’t want to guess. Imo, it’s ridiculous for ME to vote for a person on anything but the issues. If I care about the environment, the economy and education, Im not voting for Trump. I really don’t care about breaking bread with either Hillary or Trump. If the discussion gets to that, it’s a dead end. Trump is not good for the economy, the environment or education. Anyone who disses science, really has no place in politics. There is no decision you can make in politics that is not steeped in science.

So if Trump never keeps any of his, best healthcare, drain the swamp, balance the budget, great environment etc. I have to live with those failings. I can live much easier having a few of them and never liking the personal traits of Either. .

 

Oh, Trump promised a $4000 raise for everyone because of tax cuts.
Have you seen your’s ?
Sure, unemployment has dropped, but the last two years, real estate has ski rocketed and people are paying fully 1/3 for mortgages alone. The cost of education is going up and the gop has seen fit to underfund gvt. Ed loans.
Fully 1/5 of those working are contract workers with no healthcare or benefits.
The more you dig, the worse it looks.
Where are all the clean coal jobs. They’re still waiting while healthcare is being decimated.