Furthermore, the pipelines don't increase oil production. All they do is more easily transport the oil already being extracted to different parts of the country. For instance, the Dakota Access Pipeline transported oil to the Chicago area.
Transportation is part of production. If they can transport it more cheaply, they will spend the money saved on production, and they will sell at lower prices, people will buy more gas, and more damage will be done to the environment. If we invested the same resources into sustainable infrastructure, those prices would come down without the long term damage.
Whether global warming exists or not may not be up for debate, but how fast global warming is occurring and what to do about it is absolutely up for debate. Scientists disagree adamantly about the details.
So we are somewhere between already completely screwed, and and screwed if we don't change our infrastructure in the next 150 years. If we start changing our infrastructure now, it will still take 50 years to overhaul and replace everything. If we switch now, we will be on the cutting edge of modern technology, if we don't, some other country will beat us to it. In the process of switching, we will create a great deal of wealth and jobs that can't be exported. And we will be energy independent, making our position in international affairs much more secure. There are a lot of upsides, and the only downsides are for the companies that are literally poisoning our air and water. But go ahead, debate whether we should do anything about this. Debate whether we should run the risk that scientists are right when they keep telling us we need to take immediate action. How much risk are you comfortable with? If there is a 5% chance that global warming will wipe the United States from the earth if we don't change our infrastructure starting now, are you willing to take that risk, just so some of the most subsidized companies can keep making record profits?
you still think he is honest. In my previous comment I was talking about how he kept his promises on certain issues like the pipelines, and even if you disagree ideologically, at least he was being honest about the issue. What would you call it when someone does what they say they were going to do on an issue if not honest?
Honesty means telling the truth every time. Integrity means sticking to your principles consistently. Trump lies constantly, and his proclaimed principles change so often that any action he takes or doesn't take is guaranteed to line up with what he said at one point or another.
Again, up for debate. Tell that to the millions of people who have health care but can't afford to use it under Obamacare, while they subsidize others using it. So you can disagree with the policy, but Trump tried to do what he said he would try and do. Again, that's honest. What would you call it if not honest? And btw, even Democrats say Obamacare needs a massive overhaul. Republicans wanted to repeal and replace it with their own plan, Democrats wanted to change it. Obamacare also killed health care for a lot of people, so that people couldn't keep their doctors, plans, etc.
Whether Obamacare should be repealed depends on what you are replacing it with in the same piece of legislation. Obamacare reduced the rate of increase of health premiums, and has increased the number of people with healthcare. Each Republican proposal would have resulted in fewer people with coverage, as would just repealing it. If you repeal Obamacare and replace it with single payer, medicare for all, that is good. If you add a public option, medicare buy in, that is good. If you do something worse, it is bad.
Look, I know you don't like Trump, but lets get beyond that for the purposes of this discussion.
No. We will not get beyond it. He said we should torture even if it doesn't work. The fact that you are ok with him after saying that is shocking, I question whether you have any sense of right and wrong at all.