Trump Broken Promises thread

[KD in CA]

 

It's weird. It's like he'd been a Democrat his entire life until this past year or something.

 

But...but....he's Hitler!

[gatorbait]

Trump is evolving. When the Anne Coulters of the world are getting more and more pissed I think he is moving in the right direction. He is flip-flopping on a lot of issues but it might not be a bad thing. In my lifetime, all presidents promised the world and then when they are elected the reality of the job sets in and they can't deliver on everything.

 

Bannon becoming more and more diminished. Saying NATO is no longer obsolete. Praising China's president and trying to work with him instead of criticizing or threatening them. Saying our military is the best in the world instead of trashing them. Acknowledging the US is a world leader and must act like one, or some other country will fill the role.

 

The world has to be thinking that Mattis, Trump and Haley mean business. Even if there is no long term plan at this point for the Middle East or North Korea, America has military power and is not afraid to use it.

[Tiberius]

Sounds too good to be true that his true believers are losing faith already...

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200

[DC Tom]

Sounds too good to be true that his true believers are losing faith already...

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200

 

And I'll remind everyone again of my rationale several months ago:

 

Trump would restore checks and balances to the government and limit the expansion of the authority of the executive, because whereas the Democrats would have been in lock-step with Hillary no matter what, the Candied Yam would eventually alienate everybody...

[ExiledInIllinois]

The exact opposite of "draining the swamp", is this guy a flip-flopper, he's filling the swamp:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/?utm_term=.d1f4718e971f

 

And I'll remind everyone again of my rationale several months ago:

 

Trump would restore checks and balances to the government and limit the expansion of the authority of the executive, because whereas the Democrats would have been in lock-step with Hillary no matter what, the Candied Yam would eventually alienate everybody...

I will believe it when I see it. All a smokescreen, the 'pubes are in lockstep.

Edited April 14, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[Tiberius]

The exact opposite of "draining the swamp", is this guy a flip-flopper, he's filling the swamp:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/?utm_term=.d1f4718e971f

 

I will believe it when I see it. All a smokescreen, the 'pubes are in lockstep.

Who cares about who the Prez is talked no to? Did you see the neat bomb they dropped?

[Azalin]

I will believe it when I see it. All a smokescreen, the 'pubes are in lockstep.

 

Lockstep? You mean like when they unanimously passed the AHCA?

[grinreaper]

Who cares about who the Prez is talked no to? Did you see the neat bomb they dropped?

Can you tell me what language this is so that I can get it translated?

[B-Man]

Can you tell me what language this is so that I can get it translated?

 

 

It's Liberal.

 

So..............no there is no logical translation.

 

.

[/dev/null]

Can you tell me what language this is so that I can get it translated?

 

 

 

It's Liberal.

 

So..............no there is no logical translation.

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

What a shocker:

Trump has been in office for literally 6% of his term(86 days out for 1461, 86/1461 == 0.058 rounded to .06), and butthurt GG is doing a broken promises thread?

 

What a great unintended commentary on "I can only see my way of doing things, and therefore, if each event doesn't follow my way, the goal will never work/happen", client-side thinking. Or, Romney thinking. Take your pick.

 

I suggest we all remember the campaign, I know, that's painful for the STILL-butthurt. There were so many days, even just parts of days, where "Trump was done". Only to have some set of unforeseeable(to the butthurt, not to me) events come along and wipe out their absolute certainty. Often times the entire thing was clearly designed from end to end by Trump, and legions of idiots would get played...while I laughed.

 

So: GG, when are you going to learn that your links above...are designed to provoke a response? How often does this pattern have to be repeated for you to get it?

 

When are the butthurt going to learn: Trump is a lot better at his job than they are at theirs? They need to immediately stop projecting their standards of win/lose, fail/succeed, and their talent level onto him. Trump has proven, over and over, than he can get things done in conditions and situations where they can't.

 

The root cause for underestimating Trump, is the overestimation of those observing/judging him in their own abilities.

 

How many times does the "incompetent" Trump...need to win, for those calling him that to realize that he's been playing them from the start, and it's their competency that's being exposed as lacking?

Edited April 16, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

When the Anne Coulters of the world are getting more and more pissed I think he is moving in the right direction.

What in the Sam hell makes you think that your response isn't intentionally being provoked, by Trump? (Christ this is a Pepe meme waiting to happen. Perhaps I will do it tonight.)

 

This is exactly what I am talking about. Example: The #1 problem Trump had to deal with is: no government experience. It's what makes his election so "unprecedented", and "amazing" and "shocking", et al.

 

Rather than trying to fight a losing battle with that problem, and therefore giving that issue to the left forever? He purposely confuses/diverts you instead, by creating and presenting other "problems" for himself. Then he solves them. Pissing off Ann Coulter, is just the latest of a 100+. Now, you're talking about Ann F'ing Coulter, of all people, not him. And, whether you know it or not, Trump just moved himself down on your list of people you don't like. Best of all it costs him: nothing. Every time he does this, he gains and loses nothing. Wait until the next thing happens that everybody knows is a win: then Coulter will be back on TV saying "I told you so".

 

When are you going to get it? Better, when are you going to get that Trump is exactly the kind of thinker we need right now, to rat-F China? Iran? Russia? The Regressive/Fascist Left? You think Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney is capable of this level of thought? Hell no. You think Befuddled Bernie is in Trump's league? Hell no. That's why those of us who saw it early, supported Trump immediately.

 

Trump is not evolving. The only evolution going on here lies in the perceptions of the army of idiots who still don't understand Trump's game plan.

 

The vast majority of Trump's supporters understand. Not everybody of course. But, almost everybody on the internet does. This is why Pepe The Frog is so hilarious. Pepe The Frog is merely our way of running Trump's game plan. We can do it too...and to this day, nobody gets it.

Edited April 16, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[gatorbait]

Holy hell, looks like they let some one out of the asylum again.

 

My point was he is flip flopping on a lot of issues. Intervening in the Middle East, China, Yellen and the fed, the export/import bank, NATO. And that is just in the last week. I think he's becoming more reasonable and informed. He is reaching out to more people than just the crazy populist Anne Coulters of the world. It's smart, but you give him way too much credit. He was either uniformed before, or is just trying to improve his approval rating by any means possible.

[OCinBuffalo]

Holy hell, looks like they let some one out of the asylum again.

 

My point was he is flip flopping on a lot of issues. Intervening in the Middle East, China, Yellen and the fed, the export/import bank, NATO. And that is just in the last week. I think he's becoming more reasonable and informed. He is reaching out to more people than just the crazy populist Anne Coulters of the world. It's smart, but you give him way too much credit. He was either uniformed before, or is just trying to improve his approval rating by any means possible.

Yes, Anne Coulter...the populist? And you're talking about being "informed".

 

The rest is rationalization. Trump always was reasonable and hyper-informed.

 

He could not have conducted things the way he has otherwise. To wit: nobody was talking about NATO, until he called them out. Most leftists/media people insta-posted their usual Trump hate. But, that's not good enough, and the leftists/media had to think about how to prove him wrong. That's exactly what he wanted: them having to "think", and show their work in public. Everybody had to come up with why what he was saying was so bad. In the process of that "investigation", the fact that everybody but the UK, Poland, and Latvia, do not pay for their own national defense, yet, presume to lecture us on the value of socialism, came out.

 

Every leftist in the entire West had to answer for that, and had no answer. It was left as a giant Trump win. NATO immediately began an Anti-terror command, which is a win for all of us. Mattis has since gone to NATO and told them to pay up. Now, all these freeloading European people have agreed to pay...and...

 

Bingo! The deal is closed. Trump keeps up his end and says NATO's Ok...Now.

 

Thus, you are clueless if you think Trump was uninformed about NATO. He was so well-informed, and so politically astute, that he put this entire thing together and executed it brilliantly: using one line, in one speech. In the long term it cost him nothing, and he gained a ton of political support, and got the $, because again: he was right.

 

You're merely proving that you didn't get it during the campaign, you don't get it now, and it's getting more and more likely that you won't be getting it until around 2040, if ever.

 

EDIT: The more responses like this I see, the more convinced I am that you and the rest of the left are simply incapable of laying a glove on Trump. You're too ignorant about Trump, and too arrogant to do anything about it.

Edited April 16, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[gatorbait]

All this is: rationalization. Trump always was reasonable and hyper-informed.

 

He could not have conducted things the way he has otherwise. To wit: nobody was talking about NATO, until he called them out. Most leftists/media people insta-posted their usual Trump hate. But, that's not good enough, and the leftists/media had to think about how to prove him wrong. That's exactly what he wanted: them having to "think", and show their work in public. Everybody had to come up with why what he was saying was so bad. In the process of that "investigation", the fact that Germany/Sweden/Denmark/France, basically everybody but the UK, Poland, and Latvia, do not pay for their own national defense, yet, presume to lecture us on the value of socialism, came out.

 

Now, everybody had to answer for that. And, NATO immediately began an Anti-terror command.

 

Thus, you are clueless if you think Trump was uninformed about NATO. He was so well-informed, and so politically astute, that he put this entire thing together and executed it brilliantly: using one line, in one speech. In the long term it cost him nothing, and he gained a ton of political support, because again: he was right.

 

Yes, Anne Coulter...the populist? And you're talking about being "informed".

 

You're merely proving that you didn't get it during the campaign, you don't get it now, and it's getting more and more likely that you won't be getting it until around 2040, if ever.

You are the only one I know on this site to go out on a limb this devotedly for Trump. I applaud your loyalty. I'm rationalizing the fact that he changed his stance on issues. Your theory is he is a mastermind who is playing all of this like a well thought-out chess game. That is ridiculous. This job is more than he expected and he is learning day-by-day how to do it better. Just like healthcare, who knew being president could be so complicated.

 

NATO hasn't done anything differently, they still have another couple of years to hit the mark of 2% of their GDP for defense. Trump met with the Secretary General for an hour and was suddenly changing his tune about how NATO isn't obsolete anymore. Call that whatever you want. NATO has been assisting in the fight against terror since 9/11 but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. They could carry more weight and do a lot more but that is a whole other topic.

 

You are unhinged man, just like Trumplethinskin on a bad day. I'm an independent, not a democrat. I think he is getting better at being president, so eat a bag of dicks with your crazy nonsense.

Edited April 16, 2017 by gatorbait

[OCinBuffalo]

You are the only one I know on this site to go out on a limb this devotedly for Trump. I applaud your loyalty. I'm rationalizing the fact that he changed his stance on issues. Your theory is he is a mastermind who is playing all of this like a well thought-out chess game. That is ridiculous. This job is more than he expected and he is learning day-by-day how to do it better. Just like healthcare, who knew being president could be so complicated.

NATO hasn't done anything differently, they still have another couple of years to hit the mark of 2% of their GDP for defense. Trump met with the Secretary General for an hour and was suddenly changing his tune about how NATO isn't obsolete anymore. Call that whatever you want. NATO has been assisting in the fight against terror since 9/11 but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. They could carry more weight and do a lot more but that is a whole other topic.

 

You are unhinged man, just like Trumplethinskin on a bad day. I'm an independent, not a democrat. I think he is getting better at being president, so eat a bag of dicks with your crazy nonsense.

1. Judging any behavior based on "this site" means you're already wrong. But, please continue.

 

2. I gave you a point by point description of how he played the NATO thing, and you, like a cello. How do you even know to say "2% of their GDP for defense"?

Is that something you knew prior to the "OMG! Trump said NATO bad!" media freakout? Of course not. Do you even realize that I am right when I say that? Of course not. Right, you knew that NATO's financial requirements were 2%(not 3, or 5) of GDP(not some set figure based on population) and that most of NATO has owed $ since the 1990s, or in some cases, 80s...and it wasn't Trump that made you aware of that at all.

 

 

3. Explain why NATO created a specific Anti-Terror command after Trump called them obsolete? Explain the timing of that. Explain why, if they were fighting terror this whole time...the need for such a command to be created. You can't. Anything you say defies the facts and logic.

 

4. Ah yeah, the personal attack, the last refuge of the argument loser. See, I'm not calling you a name. You are in fact the loser of this argument. Whenever you get done talking, that's what you will be.

Edited April 16, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[gatorbait]

1. Judging any behavior based on "this site" means you're already wrong. But, please continue.

 

2. I gave you a point by point description of how he played the NATO thing, and you, like a cello. How do you even know to say "2% of their GDP for defense"?

Is that something you knew prior to the "OMG! Trump said NATO bad!" media freakout? Of course not. Do you even realize that I am right when I say that? Of course not. Right, you knew that NATO's financial requirements were 2%(not 3, or 5) of GDP(not some set figure based on population) and that most of NATO has owed $ since the 1990s, or in some cases, 80s...and it wasn't Trump that made you aware of that at all.

 

 

3. Explain why NATO created a specific Anti-Terror command after Trump called them obsolete? Explain the timing of that. Explain why, if they were fighting terror this whole time...the need for such a command to be created. You can't. Anything you say defies the facts and logic.

 

4. Ah yeah, the personal attack, the last refuge of the argument loser. See, I'm not calling you a name. You are in fact the loser of this argument. Whenever you get done talking, that's what you will be.

I doubt anyone else around here is going to say how rational and hyper-informed Trump is, like you are doing tonight in your posts. You clearly like the Donald, cool. No one cares. Pretty much everyone is going to wait another 1-4 years to really judge him and his presidency anyways so settle down.

 

The 2% agreement made in 2006 was to be upheld by 2020 or 2024 or something. I'm too tipsy and tired to look it up, plus you aren't worth it. Oh wow, they made a new anti-terror command to make Trump and his supporters happy. Big deal.

 

Your posts tonight are unhinged and you can still eat a bag of dicks with your crazy nonsense.

[OCinBuffalo]

I doubt anyone else around here is going to say how rational and hyper-informed Trump is, like you are doing tonight in your posts. You clearly like the Donald, cool. No one cares. Pretty much everyone is going to wait another 1-4 years to really judge him and his presidency anyways so settle down.

 

The 2% agreement made in 2006 was to be upheld by 2020 or 2024 or something. I'm too tipsy and tired to look it up, plus you aren't worth it. Oh wow, they made a new anti-terror command to make Trump and his supporters happy. Big deal.

 

Your posts tonight are unhinged and you can still eat a bag of dicks with your crazy nonsense.

Yeah, I'm so unhinged that you can't answer simple questions like: where did you learn that it was 2% of GDP? And, why did the new Anti-Terror Command get created immediately after Trump called out NATO.

 

"I'm so drunk" works for girls who want to get laid, not here. If you're too drunk right now, fine. I'll give you 48 hours to sober up, and then answer my F'ing questions.

[gatorbait]

Yeah, I'm so unhinged that you can't answer simple questions like: where did you learn that it was 2% of GDP? And, why did the new Anti-Terror Command get created immediately after Trump called out NATO.

 

"I'm so drunk" works for girls who want to get laid, not here. If you're too drunk right now, fine. I'll give you 48 hours to sober up, and then answer my F'ing questions.

Everyone who reads the news knows a 2% agreement was made in 2006. They are probably going to wait until the deadline to meet the full quota. Yawn. I already answered your second question.

 

Goodnight sweetheart, I can't wait to see you tomorrow.

[ALF]

Military spending by NATO members

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11