Buffoonery once again
Jul 13, 2020 13:38:09 #
RandyBrian
Loc: Texas
moldyoldy wrote:
Latest News: On June 1, 2020, the Trump administra... (show quote)
I had not seen this. If true, and I do not know if your source is accurate, I would definitely oppose it.
Jul 13, 2020 20:52:22 #
Kevyn wrote:
President Donald Trump inquired about the possibil... (show quote)
>>>
Did you say buffoonery ? That is awesome man !
What a great word.... I love it !
Jul 13, 2020 21:19:47 #
Sicilianthing wrote:
Fits you like a glove.>>>
Did you say buffoonery ? That is awesome man !
What a great word.... I love it !
Did you say buffoonery ? That is awesome man !
What a great word.... I love it !
Jul 13, 2020 21:25:18 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Fits you like a glove.
>>>
You can think that but my score card is perfect ... just look at the 2nd lockdown now underway... just as I predicted.
C’mon take the challenge... guess what’s coming next... can you guess it, I can !
2nd lockdown here:
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-189144-1.html
Jul 14, 2020 11:17:06 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
China might be interested 
China is interested but wants everything for nothing. Same as a leftest.
Jul 14, 2020 14:38:25 #
thanks for eating moldys lunch Randybrian......looks like he'll have to eat his usual...... propaganda and crow
Jul 15, 2020 09:54:58 #
RandyBrian
Loc: Texas
moldyoldy wrote:
Latest News: On June 1, 2020, the Trump administra... (show quote)
OK, my friend, I finally had a chance to do a little research.
Yes, the current administration has redefined what constitutes a navigable water way, which removes a whole host of federal regulations from the books. However, only extreme environmentalist are howling that it will make the water less clean. Almost all the waterways affected are in seasonal wetlands and streams, which are dry most of the year. Almost all of the regulations affected are redundant with other federal laws, and are unnecessary. The administration is following what the President promised to do: reduce unneeded federal regulations. This also moves a fair amount of protecting the water from the feds back to the states, which is where (I think) it properly belongs. It is also my opinion that THAT is what the left is most upset about. They desire big government anywhere and everywhere, and moving authority from the feds to the states is against everything they believe. I also think it is motivated by TDS. This administration could try and eliminate coal production (like the Obama administration) and the left would find some reason to oppose it. Probably claim Trumps motivations weren't "pure" and benevolent.
I looked at a number of articles, both left and right, to reach my conclusions, but there are a lot more out there. I did not find ANYTHING that said water anywhere was less clean, just a lot of left wing people insisting that it would be, eventually.
Jul 15, 2020 12:01:52 #
[quote=RandyBrian]OK, my friend, I finally had a chance to do a little research.
Yes, the current administration has redefined what constitutes a navigable water way, which removes a whole host of federal regulations from the books. However, only extreme environmentalist are howling that it will make the water less clean. Almost all the waterways affected are in seasonal wetlands and streams, which are dry most of the year. Almost all of the regulations affected are redundant with other federal laws, and are unnecessary. The administration is following what the President promised to do: reduce unneeded federal regulations. This also moves a fair amount of protecting the water from the feds back to the states, which is where (I think) it properly belongs. It is also my opinion that THAT is what the left is most upset about. They desire big government anywhere and everywhere, and moving authority from the feds to the states is against everything they believe. I also think it is motivated by TDS. This administration could try and eliminate coal production (like the Obama administration) and the left would find some reason to oppose it. Probably claim Trumps motivations weren't "pure" and benevolent.
I looked at a number of articles, both left and right, to reach my conclusions, but there are a lot more out there. I did not find ANYTHING that said water anywhere was less clean, just a lot of left wing people insisting that it would be, eventually.[/
In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its revised “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. The proposed rule dramatically restricts what falls under the purview of the Clean Water Act, the environmental law that has led to the cleanup of thousands of rivers and lakes in the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the rule would remove federal protections for 18 percent of stream and river miles and 51 percent of wetlands in the United States, putting protections at their lowest levels since the Reagan administration and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water.
Despite EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s claim that the changes were made to simplify what waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, a close reading of the rule suggests that the changes add little clarity. In fact, experts have pointed out that the definitions used in the new rule are so general—and stray so far from sound science—that consultants may be required to determine whether a water body falls under federal jurisdiction. This would place further stress on farmers and landowners who are making good-faith efforts to follow the law.
While Wheeler recently claimed that “access to clean drinking water worldwide is ‘the biggest environmental threat’,” the rule appears to be yet another gift from Trump’s EPA to polluters, especially the coal and hard-rock mining industries that have already benefited from myriad Trump administration policies. The proposed rule’s shift away from science will seriously undermine water quality improvements that have been achieved since the Clean Water Act became law. Not only will the rule’s narrowed definitions overwhelm states with new regulatory responsibilities, but the rule will also kneecap the booming restoration economy. This has been key to drawing billions of dollars in private investment to support environmental restoration and protection.
What counts as WOTUS?
Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility to regulate water pollution. The agencies have written several rules since 1972 to define the bodies of water they must oversee, with new rules being promulgated in response to court decisions. The most recent case, Rapanos v. United States, was decided in 2006; the decision was 4-1-4 and defined federal jurisdiction as applying to traditionally navigable waters as well as other waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters. The latter refers to those water bodies that affect the chemical, physical, or biological health of navigable waters.
In 2015, the EPA concluded a four-year scientific review of the nation’s rivers and wetlands to determine what counted as a “significant nexus” under the Rapanos decision. It also released a rule that applied this definition to water bodies. However, industry opposed the rule, and over the subsequent years, litigation limited its implementation to 26 states.
Instead of fighting for the rulemaking and ensuring strong protections against water pollution, the Trump administration has continued its track record of supporting industry interests at the expense of the American public. The proposed new WOTUS rule eliminates the categories introduced in the 2015 rule, limiting federal protections to broad categories of “traditional navigable waters”—seas, lakes, permanent or intermittent rivers, and wetlands that either feed into or out of these water bodies. The proposed rule also explicitly excludes ephemeral streams, which flow during and shortly after precipitation events, and wetlands without surface connections to traditional navigable waters. The proposed rule also leaves open the option of removing intermittent rivers and streams before its finalization.
The new rule benefits industry at the expense of public health
A close reading of the proposed rule shows that it includes a big exemption that benefits mining companies. Specifically, it explicitly excludes “water-filled depressions created in upland incidental to mining or construction activity.” While the 2015 rule excluded dry land depressions created by mining or construction activity, it clarified that ephemeral and intermittent streams could still be considered waters of the United States, even if they were dry part of the year.
Ephemeral and intermittent streams are a critical part of hydrology in much of the country, where seasonal rainfall means that many streams and rivers do not flow year round. One example of this is an arroyo in the American Southwest, a stream that flows only during and after rains, not permanently, because the region receives so little precipitation. Including these seasonal streams under the WOTUS rule is essential, as mining activities in these areas have a major effect on the quality of water downstream.
Yet mining groups have been quietly advocating for a new WOTUS rule. While farm groups opposing WOTUS have received most of the media attention, lobbying records indicate that since 2017, the National Mining Association alone has spent $3.5 million on lobbying activities related to the new WOTUS rule. Several coal and hard-rock mining companies also list millions of dollars in WOTUS advocacy in their lobbying reports. Given the unequivocal link between mining and water contamination, these groups have a clear incentive to advocate for the narrowest definition of “waters of the United States.”
Trump’s 2019 “Economic Report of the President” confirms that the proposed WOTUS rule is intended as a handout to the mining industry, calling it one of “the most economically significant deregulatory actions for energy” currently underway. This aligns with the Trump administration’s stated priorities to support coal and extractive industries; it also follows ongoing efforts to weaken environmental and public health standards to benefit these interests by weakening EPA rules on mercury pollution and supporting the successful nullification of the Department of the Interior’s Stream Protection Rule under the Congressional Review Act.
The new rule leaves states holding the bag
Instead of empowering states, the proposed rule appears to be an end run to gut environmental protections at all levels of government.
By removing federal oversight of clean water in many areas, the proposed rule punts a significant amount of responsibility to individual states, many of which are under-resourced and legally unprepared to take on permitting and enforcement. In fact, fewer than half of states have their own permitting programs for protecting wetlands, with many of the remaining states relying on federal standards or joint programs with the Army Corps of Engineers for monitoring and enforcement. Even where these programs exist, it is not guaranteed that states will have the staff capacity to ensure that similar levels of protection are maintained. A 2015 survey by the Association of State Wetland Managers finds that only 10 states have more than 20 staff members dev**ed to wetlands-related regulatory or monitoring work.
States’ lack of staff and funding to regulate water quality, combined with the Trump administration walking away from its responsibilities, means that it simply won’t get done—and that communities will be left vulnerable to water pollution. The Trump administration’s redefinition of WOTUS is part of a broader effort to eliminate large portions of the EPA’s historical responsibilities, ostensibly handing them off to state and local agencies. However, the administration’s talking points run counter to the decadeslong history of federal-state cooperation that has improved water quality across the country.
The new rule hamstrings private investment in conservation innovation
The rollback of federal protections also threatens to undercut some of the most successful examples of using market-based tools to improve environmental quality. Mitigation—the restoration or improvement of habitats to compensate for the impacts of development—was pioneered under the Clean Water Act to address the effects of infrastructure on wetlands and streams.
The mitigation banking system has boomed in the past decade. It grants private businesses credits for investing in restoration; businesses can then sell these credits to developers who need to compensate for the impacts of development. More effective than requiring developers to oversee on-site restoration projects, the mitigation banking industry now dominates the emerging restoration economy—a sector that employs 126,000 people and generates $9.5 billion annually. More than 1,800 banks are approved to sell credits for wetland and stream restoration, and the practice has cut permitting times in half for development projects.
Because the proposed rule cuts 50 percent of wetlands and nearly 20 percent of stream and river miles from consideration under the Clean Water Act, the mitigation banking industry would face severe uncertainty if the rule were to be finalized. As discussed above, states are unlikely to fill the gap in protections that the proposed rule creates, so the change would effectively eliminate a large portion of the demand for the mitigation credits that fuel the industry. Turning off the tap for private investment in conservation is bad for business. Mitigation banks often invest in conservation easements and restoration projects years before any credits are approved for sale, so the proposed new rule would negate significant investments in bodies of water that are no longer regulated.
Conclusion
Despite the administration’s claims, the proposed Waters of the United States rule would not simplify the regulatory process or provide any clarity for farmers. Instead, it appears to be a giveaway to the mining industry that would hamstring efforts to effectively protect the nation’s waters from pollution and would place an undue burden on states. The new rule would also stifle the booming restoration economy and limit safeguards for some of the most toxic forms of development. Congress should press the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that the rule reflects the best science—and it should hold the administration accountable for this blatant attempt to give handouts to favor big polluters at the expense of public health.
Ryan Richards is a senior policy analyst for Public Lands at the Center for American Progress.
Yes, the current administration has redefined what constitutes a navigable water way, which removes a whole host of federal regulations from the books. However, only extreme environmentalist are howling that it will make the water less clean. Almost all the waterways affected are in seasonal wetlands and streams, which are dry most of the year. Almost all of the regulations affected are redundant with other federal laws, and are unnecessary. The administration is following what the President promised to do: reduce unneeded federal regulations. This also moves a fair amount of protecting the water from the feds back to the states, which is where (I think) it properly belongs. It is also my opinion that THAT is what the left is most upset about. They desire big government anywhere and everywhere, and moving authority from the feds to the states is against everything they believe. I also think it is motivated by TDS. This administration could try and eliminate coal production (like the Obama administration) and the left would find some reason to oppose it. Probably claim Trumps motivations weren't "pure" and benevolent.
I looked at a number of articles, both left and right, to reach my conclusions, but there are a lot more out there. I did not find ANYTHING that said water anywhere was less clean, just a lot of left wing people insisting that it would be, eventually.[/
In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its revised “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. The proposed rule dramatically restricts what falls under the purview of the Clean Water Act, the environmental law that has led to the cleanup of thousands of rivers and lakes in the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the rule would remove federal protections for 18 percent of stream and river miles and 51 percent of wetlands in the United States, putting protections at their lowest levels since the Reagan administration and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water.
Despite EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s claim that the changes were made to simplify what waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, a close reading of the rule suggests that the changes add little clarity. In fact, experts have pointed out that the definitions used in the new rule are so general—and stray so far from sound science—that consultants may be required to determine whether a water body falls under federal jurisdiction. This would place further stress on farmers and landowners who are making good-faith efforts to follow the law.
While Wheeler recently claimed that “access to clean drinking water worldwide is ‘the biggest environmental threat’,” the rule appears to be yet another gift from Trump’s EPA to polluters, especially the coal and hard-rock mining industries that have already benefited from myriad Trump administration policies. The proposed rule’s shift away from science will seriously undermine water quality improvements that have been achieved since the Clean Water Act became law. Not only will the rule’s narrowed definitions overwhelm states with new regulatory responsibilities, but the rule will also kneecap the booming restoration economy. This has been key to drawing billions of dollars in private investment to support environmental restoration and protection.
What counts as WOTUS?
Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility to regulate water pollution. The agencies have written several rules since 1972 to define the bodies of water they must oversee, with new rules being promulgated in response to court decisions. The most recent case, Rapanos v. United States, was decided in 2006; the decision was 4-1-4 and defined federal jurisdiction as applying to traditionally navigable waters as well as other waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters. The latter refers to those water bodies that affect the chemical, physical, or biological health of navigable waters.
In 2015, the EPA concluded a four-year scientific review of the nation’s rivers and wetlands to determine what counted as a “significant nexus” under the Rapanos decision. It also released a rule that applied this definition to water bodies. However, industry opposed the rule, and over the subsequent years, litigation limited its implementation to 26 states.
Instead of fighting for the rulemaking and ensuring strong protections against water pollution, the Trump administration has continued its track record of supporting industry interests at the expense of the American public. The proposed new WOTUS rule eliminates the categories introduced in the 2015 rule, limiting federal protections to broad categories of “traditional navigable waters”—seas, lakes, permanent or intermittent rivers, and wetlands that either feed into or out of these water bodies. The proposed rule also explicitly excludes ephemeral streams, which flow during and shortly after precipitation events, and wetlands without surface connections to traditional navigable waters. The proposed rule also leaves open the option of removing intermittent rivers and streams before its finalization.
The new rule benefits industry at the expense of public health
A close reading of the proposed rule shows that it includes a big exemption that benefits mining companies. Specifically, it explicitly excludes “water-filled depressions created in upland incidental to mining or construction activity.” While the 2015 rule excluded dry land depressions created by mining or construction activity, it clarified that ephemeral and intermittent streams could still be considered waters of the United States, even if they were dry part of the year.
Ephemeral and intermittent streams are a critical part of hydrology in much of the country, where seasonal rainfall means that many streams and rivers do not flow year round. One example of this is an arroyo in the American Southwest, a stream that flows only during and after rains, not permanently, because the region receives so little precipitation. Including these seasonal streams under the WOTUS rule is essential, as mining activities in these areas have a major effect on the quality of water downstream.
Yet mining groups have been quietly advocating for a new WOTUS rule. While farm groups opposing WOTUS have received most of the media attention, lobbying records indicate that since 2017, the National Mining Association alone has spent $3.5 million on lobbying activities related to the new WOTUS rule. Several coal and hard-rock mining companies also list millions of dollars in WOTUS advocacy in their lobbying reports. Given the unequivocal link between mining and water contamination, these groups have a clear incentive to advocate for the narrowest definition of “waters of the United States.”
Trump’s 2019 “Economic Report of the President” confirms that the proposed WOTUS rule is intended as a handout to the mining industry, calling it one of “the most economically significant deregulatory actions for energy” currently underway. This aligns with the Trump administration’s stated priorities to support coal and extractive industries; it also follows ongoing efforts to weaken environmental and public health standards to benefit these interests by weakening EPA rules on mercury pollution and supporting the successful nullification of the Department of the Interior’s Stream Protection Rule under the Congressional Review Act.
The new rule leaves states holding the bag
Instead of empowering states, the proposed rule appears to be an end run to gut environmental protections at all levels of government.
By removing federal oversight of clean water in many areas, the proposed rule punts a significant amount of responsibility to individual states, many of which are under-resourced and legally unprepared to take on permitting and enforcement. In fact, fewer than half of states have their own permitting programs for protecting wetlands, with many of the remaining states relying on federal standards or joint programs with the Army Corps of Engineers for monitoring and enforcement. Even where these programs exist, it is not guaranteed that states will have the staff capacity to ensure that similar levels of protection are maintained. A 2015 survey by the Association of State Wetland Managers finds that only 10 states have more than 20 staff members dev**ed to wetlands-related regulatory or monitoring work.
States’ lack of staff and funding to regulate water quality, combined with the Trump administration walking away from its responsibilities, means that it simply won’t get done—and that communities will be left vulnerable to water pollution. The Trump administration’s redefinition of WOTUS is part of a broader effort to eliminate large portions of the EPA’s historical responsibilities, ostensibly handing them off to state and local agencies. However, the administration’s talking points run counter to the decadeslong history of federal-state cooperation that has improved water quality across the country.
The new rule hamstrings private investment in conservation innovation
The rollback of federal protections also threatens to undercut some of the most successful examples of using market-based tools to improve environmental quality. Mitigation—the restoration or improvement of habitats to compensate for the impacts of development—was pioneered under the Clean Water Act to address the effects of infrastructure on wetlands and streams.
The mitigation banking system has boomed in the past decade. It grants private businesses credits for investing in restoration; businesses can then sell these credits to developers who need to compensate for the impacts of development. More effective than requiring developers to oversee on-site restoration projects, the mitigation banking industry now dominates the emerging restoration economy—a sector that employs 126,000 people and generates $9.5 billion annually. More than 1,800 banks are approved to sell credits for wetland and stream restoration, and the practice has cut permitting times in half for development projects.
Because the proposed rule cuts 50 percent of wetlands and nearly 20 percent of stream and river miles from consideration under the Clean Water Act, the mitigation banking industry would face severe uncertainty if the rule were to be finalized. As discussed above, states are unlikely to fill the gap in protections that the proposed rule creates, so the change would effectively eliminate a large portion of the demand for the mitigation credits that fuel the industry. Turning off the tap for private investment in conservation is bad for business. Mitigation banks often invest in conservation easements and restoration projects years before any credits are approved for sale, so the proposed new rule would negate significant investments in bodies of water that are no longer regulated.
Conclusion
Despite the administration’s claims, the proposed Waters of the United States rule would not simplify the regulatory process or provide any clarity for farmers. Instead, it appears to be a giveaway to the mining industry that would hamstring efforts to effectively protect the nation’s waters from pollution and would place an undue burden on states. The new rule would also stifle the booming restoration economy and limit safeguards for some of the most toxic forms of development. Congress should press the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that the rule reflects the best science—and it should hold the administration accountable for this blatant attempt to give handouts to favor big polluters at the expense of public health.
Ryan Richards is a senior policy analyst for Public Lands at the Center for American Progress.
Jul 15, 2020 12:26:00 #
RandyBrian
Loc: Texas
Yes, I read his report. As I said, there is a lot out there of this sort. It all depends on who you find credible, and who you choose to believe. I know too much about the history of evil done by big governments, including the US, to trust the entrenched bureaucrats. I don't trust elected officials, including Trump, very much more, but at least we can watch them. I stand by my conclusions.
Jul 15, 2020 16:49:28 #
the J man
Loc: California
RandyBrian wrote:
Here's a couple that I liked: br Reducing overbear... (show quote)
WOW can you now put together a list that is not all lies ??????
Jul 15, 2020 16:50:34 #
the J man
Loc: California
RandyBrian wrote:
You asked, I gave you examples. Instead of trying to be clever, feel free to refute any of my statements. Just remember, no one will take your word for it. Please provide credible evidence.
why don`t you post credible evidence of what you posted ???????????????
Jul 15, 2020 16:52:31 #
the J man
Loc: California
RandyBrian wrote:
President Trump removed onerous and unnecessary re... (show quote)
and you actually believe the BS you just spewed ?????????? WOW
Jul 15, 2020 17:12:04 #
RandyBrian
Loc: Texas
the J man wrote:
why don`t you post credible evidence of what you posted ???????????????
Because you would neither read nor believe them. I could provide them for you, but I lived them, and paid attention. Any research I do would be for your benefit, and it would be futile. You folks insist that we Trump supporters drink up his so-called "lies". On the contrary, most conservatives I know are like me....we want evidence to support our beliefs, and we don't trust any politician without confirmation, including Trump. You folks, on the other hand, would walk naked into the snow if Trump said it was cold outside. Do your own research.
Jul 15, 2020 17:18:15 #
RandyBrian
Loc: Texas
This is from a different thread, but it seems applicable here. I agree with every word.
Don G. Dinsdale (a regular here) Joined: Sep 6, 2014 Posts: 17537 Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY REASONS TO RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP, JUST 20 IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE GO AHEAD, BUT CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM 20 TO HOWEVER MANY YOU ADD... Don D.
1) The Pre-C****a Economy: C****a would have smashed the economy no matter who was in charge. Before that? It was doing fantastic. More than four million jobs were created. Manufacturing grew at the fastest rate in three decades. Unemployment claims hit a 49-year low. Black unemployment reached the lowest level ever. Welfare participation reached a 17-year low. Median household income reached the highest level ever. When we’re rebuilding the economy after C****a calms down, who do you want in charge? The guy who did that or the guy that was VP during the mediocre recovery from the housing crash?
2) Judges: Trump put two excellent judges on the Supreme Court and has over 200 judicial appointments.
3) Trump Signs the VA Accountability Act: A lot of Presidents talk about getting better health care for our veterans. Trump actually signed a bill that has made a positive difference for our Vets. (One Example Is The "Choice Program!"... Worked Great For Me... Don D.)
4) Decimated ISIS: Remember the “JV team” that Obama allowed to take over a big part of Iraq? The US has taken 98% of its territory and k**led its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi under Trump’s leadership.
5) Pulling Out of the Iran Deal: Obama’s deal with Iran essentially gave them the green light to develop nuclear weapons. Trump pulled out of the deal and has been working with our European allies to impose sanctions that will stop Iran from developing nukes.
6) Trump was the First President to Meet Kim Jong-un in North Korea: Trump was not able to get Kim Jong-un to give up nuclear weapons in his first term, but no US President has ever done more or gone father to make it happen.
7) Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel: Presidents have been talking about doing this since Clinton was in office. Trump did it.
8) Pulled Out of the Paris Climate Accord: By some estimates, the Paris Climate Accord would have cost us 2.7 million jobs and blocked the development of clean coal. Getting out of it was the smart play.
9) Deregulation: Trump has done more to cut regulations than any President since Ronald Reagan.
10) The Space Force: Trump created the 6th branch of the U.S. Armed Services, the Space Force. Creating a branch of the service dedicated to warfare in outer space should have been done decades ago and it’s good to see Trump finally getting it going. Like Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, it will pay big dividends over the long haul.
11) Replacing NAFTA: American workers have suffered because of bad trade deals for years. Trump has worked tirelessly to improve those deals and his biggest success on that front has been replacing NAFTA with a new trade deal that has terms more favorable to the United States.
12) Food Stamp Work Requirements: Trump tightened work requirements on food stamps. As Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said, the SNAP program, “was never intended to be a way of life.”
13) Denying Grant Money to Sanctuary Cities: Any city that is going to aid i*****l a***ns in breaking the law should be punished. Cutting off federal funds to those cities is long overdue.
14) Reducing Refugees and Temporary Workers: In a time when so many Americans are out of work because of the C****av***s and lockdowns, Trump has dramatically reduced the numbers of refugees and temporary workers to help more Americans get back to work.
15) Ending Catch and Release: This was a HUGE improvement on the i*****l i*********n front. Instead of catching i******s, allowing them to go free, and then never show up for their court dates, Trump has been locking them up. This is how it always should have been.
16) Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” Program: Stopping mostly f**e asylum seekers in Mexico instead of the US was a stroke of genius.
17) Building a Wall: Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That hasn’t been possible without the cooperation of Congress, but he has built 100 miles of wall and has secured funding for 445 miles of the 722 border wall miles needed on the southern border.
18) America has become the World’s Largest Oil-Producer: Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States has become the largest oil-producing nation on earth. The benefit to our economy and national security is immeasurable.
19) Cut Taxes: Trump’s tax cut for individuals and corporations is a big part of why the economy has been so strong.
20) Got Rid of the Obamacare Individual Mandate: Trump was not able to get rid of Obamacare per se, but by getting rid of the penalty for people that don’t use approved plans, he ensured that Obamacare couldn’t survive long-term.
Don G. Dinsdale (a regular here) Joined: Sep 6, 2014 Posts: 17537 Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY REASONS TO RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP, JUST 20 IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE GO AHEAD, BUT CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM 20 TO HOWEVER MANY YOU ADD... Don D.
1) The Pre-C****a Economy: C****a would have smashed the economy no matter who was in charge. Before that? It was doing fantastic. More than four million jobs were created. Manufacturing grew at the fastest rate in three decades. Unemployment claims hit a 49-year low. Black unemployment reached the lowest level ever. Welfare participation reached a 17-year low. Median household income reached the highest level ever. When we’re rebuilding the economy after C****a calms down, who do you want in charge? The guy who did that or the guy that was VP during the mediocre recovery from the housing crash?
2) Judges: Trump put two excellent judges on the Supreme Court and has over 200 judicial appointments.
3) Trump Signs the VA Accountability Act: A lot of Presidents talk about getting better health care for our veterans. Trump actually signed a bill that has made a positive difference for our Vets. (One Example Is The "Choice Program!"... Worked Great For Me... Don D.)
4) Decimated ISIS: Remember the “JV team” that Obama allowed to take over a big part of Iraq? The US has taken 98% of its territory and k**led its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi under Trump’s leadership.
5) Pulling Out of the Iran Deal: Obama’s deal with Iran essentially gave them the green light to develop nuclear weapons. Trump pulled out of the deal and has been working with our European allies to impose sanctions that will stop Iran from developing nukes.
6) Trump was the First President to Meet Kim Jong-un in North Korea: Trump was not able to get Kim Jong-un to give up nuclear weapons in his first term, but no US President has ever done more or gone father to make it happen.
7) Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel: Presidents have been talking about doing this since Clinton was in office. Trump did it.
8) Pulled Out of the Paris Climate Accord: By some estimates, the Paris Climate Accord would have cost us 2.7 million jobs and blocked the development of clean coal. Getting out of it was the smart play.
9) Deregulation: Trump has done more to cut regulations than any President since Ronald Reagan.
10) The Space Force: Trump created the 6th branch of the U.S. Armed Services, the Space Force. Creating a branch of the service dedicated to warfare in outer space should have been done decades ago and it’s good to see Trump finally getting it going. Like Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, it will pay big dividends over the long haul.
11) Replacing NAFTA: American workers have suffered because of bad trade deals for years. Trump has worked tirelessly to improve those deals and his biggest success on that front has been replacing NAFTA with a new trade deal that has terms more favorable to the United States.
12) Food Stamp Work Requirements: Trump tightened work requirements on food stamps. As Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said, the SNAP program, “was never intended to be a way of life.”
13) Denying Grant Money to Sanctuary Cities: Any city that is going to aid i*****l a***ns in breaking the law should be punished. Cutting off federal funds to those cities is long overdue.
14) Reducing Refugees and Temporary Workers: In a time when so many Americans are out of work because of the C****av***s and lockdowns, Trump has dramatically reduced the numbers of refugees and temporary workers to help more Americans get back to work.
15) Ending Catch and Release: This was a HUGE improvement on the i*****l i*********n front. Instead of catching i******s, allowing them to go free, and then never show up for their court dates, Trump has been locking them up. This is how it always should have been.
16) Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” Program: Stopping mostly f**e asylum seekers in Mexico instead of the US was a stroke of genius.
17) Building a Wall: Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. That hasn’t been possible without the cooperation of Congress, but he has built 100 miles of wall and has secured funding for 445 miles of the 722 border wall miles needed on the southern border.
18) America has become the World’s Largest Oil-Producer: Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States has become the largest oil-producing nation on earth. The benefit to our economy and national security is immeasurable.
19) Cut Taxes: Trump’s tax cut for individuals and corporations is a big part of why the economy has been so strong.
20) Got Rid of the Obamacare Individual Mandate: Trump was not able to get rid of Obamacare per se, but by getting rid of the penalty for people that don’t use approved plans, he ensured that Obamacare couldn’t survive long-term.
Jul 15, 2020 18:07:20 #
the J man
Loc: California
RandyBrian wrote:
Because you would neither read nor believe them. I... (show quote)
you are like the rest of your ilk, full of BS. you can`t prove it because it`s all a lie
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.