Is Trump Keeping his Campaign Promises?

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

That's a bit far fetched but all in all its a 'game' to the two in the running ... one interesting note I found memorable was that it mattered the least in effect if Hillary won ... because Hillary will be as indebted to the system as Trump is now ...

What's far fetched about it? I guarantee if Clinton had an (R). next to her name that is how liberals would have labeled her actions in Syria, Libya and Yemen and Trump did write in his book that "we must have universal health care" 

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What's far fetched about it? I guarantee if Clinton had an (R). next to her name that is how liberals would have labeled her actions in Syria, Libya and Yemen and Trump did write in his book that "we must have universal health care" 

Guarantee ?

THat's what I mean 'far fetched' ... no guarantees ... especially in these times and age ... where things turn on a tweet and a share ~

All this Hillary will destroy America reads the same as Trump will save the US of A to all of everyone outside the fishbowl ....

All this talk about Hillary being evil and a witch reads the same as Trump being the instrument of God to fix America ... less said the better ~

[Farmer77]

Just now, third_eye said:

Guarantee ?

THat's what I mean 'far fetched' ... no guarantees ... especially in these times and age ... where things turn on a tweet and a share ~

All this Hillary will destroy America reads the same as Trump will save the US of A to all of everyone outside the fishbowl ....

All this talk about Hillary being evil and a witch reads the same as Trump being the instrument of God to fix America ... less said the better ~

That guarantee is simply based on recent history and the supposed ideals that democrats stand for. Point being partisanship blinds 

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

That guarantee is simply based on recent history and the supposed ideals that democrats stand for. Point being partisanship blinds 

That's right ... and that does not in any way form or shape represents guarantees in any book , treaty or pledge ...

~

[Claire.]

It's unlikely that Trump will keep all of his campaign promises — and that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fairness, he needs the time to rethink, rework, and develop, in consultation with team members and experts. If together they are able to come up with policies that are more workable and beneficial, so much the better for everyone.

[Farmer77]

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to Trump's campaign.

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to Trump's campaign.

 

Michael Savage Warns Donald Trump: ‘Rinse’ Reince; He’s ‘Everything the Voters Rejected’ 

 Outsider my ass 

[Space Commander Travis]

20 hours ago, Claire. said:

It's unlikely that Trump will keep all of his campaign promises — and that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fairness, he needs the time to rethink, rework, and develop, in consultation with team members and experts. If together they are able to come up with policies that are more workable and beneficial, so much the better for everyone.

Well, exactly. Like he's now being criticized for not being extreme enough (see below).

25 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to Trump's campaign.

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to Trump's campaign.

 

Michael Savage Warns Donald Trump: ‘Rinse’ Reince; He’s ‘Everything the Voters Rejected’ 

 Outsider my ass 

If he did set himself up as an enemy of both the Democrats and the Republicans, how much would he possibly have been able to get done? 

[Farmer77]

10 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

 

If he did set himself up as an enemy of both the Democrats and the Republicans, how much would he possibly have been able to get done? 

But that's exactly what he claimed was happening so he could get elected. You cant be an anti establishment candidate and then turn around and hire one of the  heads of the establishment as chief of staff. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Farmer77

[Claire.]

14 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Well, exactly. Like he's now being criticized for not being extreme enough (see below).

I think that in some cases it's a situation of careful what you wish for. Would they prefer he got rid of people like Priebus and instead bring in a gazillion Bannons? Anyone who truly believed the swamp would be drained was dreaming. It was neither feasible or realistic. Nor was it entirely necessary. It was a campaign 'promise' Trump made that he knew would be impossible to keep. But it sounded good at the time right?

[Farmer77]

Just now, Claire. said:

I think that in some cases it's a situation of careful what you wish for. Would they prefer he got rid of people like Priebus and instead bring in a gazillion Bannons? Anyone who truly believed the swamp would be drained was dreaming. It was neither feasible or realistic. Nor was it entirely necessary. It was a campaign 'promise' Trump made that he knew would be impossible to keep. But it sounded good at the time right?

No it is entirely necessary 

 

 

 

[Claire.]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No it is entirely necessary 

I've got an early meeting with my thesis adviser, but will look at your videos when I get back. I meant it from the perspective that there are some really good people who are part of the so-called 'establishment' that shouldn't be overlooked on an individual basis. But overall, I'm in agreement with you.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Claire. said:

I've got an early meeting with my thesis adviser, but will look at your videos when I get back. I meant it from the perspective that there are some really good people who are part of the so-called 'establishment' that shouldn't be overlooked on an individual basis. But overall, I'm in agreement with you.

Definitely watch the first one, its based on  a princeton /northwestern study and is very eye opening. Good luck with the adviser. 

[skliss]

Look...the last thing I want is another guy who sweeps in and uses his pen to dictate what America does. I've always thought the reasoning behind and the way the 2 party system works to our benefit, is when we can take the best ideas of both and make them work. 

If you think it thru, he needs some people who know how Washington works and some people with the same ideas behind what got him elected in the first place. I'm willing to let him set it up his way and then call him out on what isn't working later.  

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, skliss said:

Look...the last thing I want is another guy who sweeps in and uses his pen to dictate what America does. I've always thought the reasoning behind and the way the 2 party system works to our benefit, is when we can take the best ideas of both and make them work. 

If you think it thru, he needs some people who know how Washington works and some people with the same ideas behind what got him elected in the first place. I'm willing to let him set it up his way and then call him out on what isn't working later.  

We dont have a "two party system" Thats a fallacy. Yes we have become conditioned to believe thats how things are but its not how things are SUPPOSED to be. 

The founding fathers tried to warn us about allowing a two party sham to occur : The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System 

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

 

[skliss]

IMO I think that's how it works best.....I'm old enough to have seen it in the past. This whole new business of everything HAS to be one way is what has gotten us into the mess we are in now. 

[Farmer77]

9 minutes ago, skliss said:

IMO I think that's how it works best.....I'm old enough to have seen it in the past. This whole new business of everything HAS to be one way is what has gotten us into the mess we are in now. 

The point though is that it doesnt have to be one of two ways. In fact its dangerous to us as a nation to be presented with only two viewpoints. 

[RavenHawk]

I think this is a bit sensationalism.  I don’t think that any Administration has a chance of effective rule leaving out all insiders of the Party.  Trump has offered an olive branch to the likes of Romney, Bush’s, Kasich, etc.  If the Rinos or Establishment want to be a part of this nation’s future, they will take him up on his offer.  Otherwise they will probably face political death.

 

I heard an interview with Leslie Stahl??  She asked about what he would keep of Obamacare and he replied the precondition non-restrictions and children staying on parents plans until age 26.  Then the headlines read that Trump was backpedaling on Obamacare.  The last time I looked, those two items are not Obamacare.  They can be incorporated into a better plan.  The MSM is still twisting the truth.

 

That article on illegals is 3 months old.  However, I think everyone realizes that after the border is secured, there will have to be some kind of amnesty.  Not blanket, but in order for illegals to become righteous, they will have to meet certain requirements and pay penalties, fines, and restitution.  There are probably above 30million here illegally.  They must begin to assimilate or leave.  And assimilation means cutting all ties and allegiances to their parent country.  In order to prevent more coming across the border, the cutoff date should be anyone here before 8 years prior will be considered as a candidate for amnesty.  All other must go.  Natural born Children will have to go with parents as parental rights supersede Constitutional rights.  The child can return when they come of age or they seek and secure emancipation.

[Gunn]

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I heard an interview with Leslie Stahl??  She asked about what he would keep of Obamacare and he replied the precondition non-restrictions and children staying on parents plans until age 26.  Then the headlines read that Trump was backpedaling on Obamacare.  The last time I looked, those two items are not Obamacare.  They can be incorporated into a better plan.  The MSM is still twisting the truth

Maybe you outta clarify in what you mean by "those two items are not Obamacare", RavenHawk, because I distinctly remember seeing those two things in the ACA plan back in 2014 when it was first came out. I'm thinking you mean something else when you say that? Maybe?

And usually when one says they're going to "replace' something, they usually mean they are going to replace every part of it completely. Like when I replaced my toilet paper the other day with a new roll. I totally replaced it.
 

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, Purifier said:

Maybe you outta clarify in what you mean by "those two items are not Obamacare", RavenHawk, because I distinctly remember seeing those two things in the ACA plan back in 2014 when it was first came out. I'm thinking you mean something else when you say that? Maybe?

And usually when one says they're going to "replace' something, they usually mean they are going to replace every part of it completely. Like when I replaced my toilet paper the other day with a new roll. I totally replaced it.
 

I meant exactly what I said, but I can see where someone might misunderstand so let me say it a bit differently (to clarify it).

 

Those two items are in the framework known as the ACA.  They are just components.  They are concepts not exclusively unique to Obamacare.  Obamacare is a system.  Why do you think the IRS is so intertwined into it?  In order to save costs, Obamacare could just as easily drop people with preexisting conditions or children over 18.

 

If you like, we can replace your used roll but keep one sheet of the old and add it to the new roll.

[RavenHawk]

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

We dont have a "two party system" Thats a fallacy. Yes we have become conditioned to believe thats how things are but its not how things are SUPPOSED to be. 

I agree that the division between Parties is a façade.  When Socialism injected itself into our politics, it systematically began a slow dismantling of the Constitution.  It transformed an Adversarial System into hate.

 

The founding fathers tried to warn us about allowing a two party sham to occur : 

Yes they did but what’s going on is not that sham.  What we have now is one Party rule usurping the Constitution.  Now, it may have been brought on by uber politics of both sides but it’s not because of two Parties.

 

The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System John Adams said: There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were never clear as to what the alternate to the Adversarial System is.  What Washington describes is Obama to a tee (or the environment that he sprang from) and so their warning is not lost, but it isn’t because of an equal two Party system.  Someone wasn’t being vigilant.  It is because the two eventually morphed into one.  One Party with two wings.  The thing is is that every single American will lean one way or the other.  And groups of similar minded people will band together.  There is no cure for that.  But in times after the Founding Fathers, both sides worked for the betterment of this nation, it wasn’t until something so insidious infiltrated our government and tries to reprogram it for its own interests.  Socialism is a parasite.  That is what we need to be weary of.  Ignorance and Apathy.  If anything the adversarial system needs to be reestablished, but as Washington stated, that it needs to be mitigated and assuaged. 

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

I meant exactly what I said, but I can see where someone might misunderstand so let me say it a bit differently (to clarify it).

 

Those two items are in the framework known as the ACA.  They are just components.  They are concepts not exclusively unique to Obamacare.  Obamacare is a system.  Why do you think the IRS is so intertwined into it?  In order to save costs, Obamacare could just as easily drop people with preexisting conditions or children over 18.

Okay I think I see what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying those two ideals (two items) were around long before the ACA or a.k.a Obamacare as it's called now, took place. You're saying they were two ideals that had been floating around from the past, before Obamacare came along and made it a reality.

That's true, but regardless, it's the ACA that put those floating ideals into effect. You seem to be indicating that Trump would've put the same two ideals in his future plan, if Obamacare never existed beforehand? I think that's speculation at best. I could just as easily speculate that Trump may have never even implemented a U.S. government healthcare system when he gets into office. Because most conservative thinkers would really rather it totally be left up to the markets on what kind of healthcare plans are offered and to be a choice by consumers if they really want any kind of healthcare.

 

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

If you like, we can replace your used roll but keep one sheet of the old and add it to the new roll.

Oh no, thanks, I was just switching them out - a bigger roll put in place for a smaller roll. I just put the smaller roll in the guest bathroom that doesn't get used all that often. 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Purifier

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

We dont have a "two party system" Thats a fallacy. Yes we have become conditioned to believe thats how things are but its not how things are SUPPOSED to be. 

The founding fathers tried to warn us about allowing a two party sham to occur : The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System 

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

 

No, what you do have is the "left" targeting third party voters and directly blaming thrm for Trump's win. You have a major party vilifying minority voters.

which is what's also happening in Australia, our government is blaming the inaction of the parliament and senate on the voters voting for so many "micro-parties" and Independents. 

[RavenHawk]

On 11/14/2016 at 4:42 AM, Farmer77 said:

<“Corruption is Legal in America” clip:>

You’ve posted this clip a few times before.  I think it is pretty accurate but I have one serious exception with it.  I think it makes the bankers out to be the boogie man in this.  I think they are just as much a victim.  The bottom line for bankers is to make money for their shareholders.  But when you screw with this basic premise, you’ll see the players doing things that are not in their best interests.  This is Crony Capitalism.  This is what happens when you introduce Socialism into a free market.  What happened in 2008 actually started in 2003 with Barney Frank as part of the House Financial Services Committee.  He pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack to accept subprime loans of people that could not pay them back.  It was a socialist wet dream so that everyone could own a home but the thing with socialism is that it doesn’t understand that someone has to pay for things.  So these bankers ended up basically betting on themselves losing in order to make money.  We think that only soldiers returning from war as getting PTSD.  Soldiers had nothing on the bankers.  The bankers were like those computers that Kirk outwitted.  But that action pretty much destroyed the housing market for perhaps a generation.  The Prog stance now is that owning your own home is now a pipe dream.

 

<“Heavily edited Eisenhower Farewell Address” clip:>

I know we’ve covered this before.  But people tend to only focus on the warning of the influence that the MIC might wield.  Most people take this implication that the MIC is evil and needs to be done away with, but that’s not what Eisenhower was getting at.  He was stating that the MIC is an integral part of American life.  It is vital to our survival.  To date, such influence has not been wielded.  He was warning that people don’t get lazy and let this source of power get out of control.  I’m pretty sure that it won’t because the people that make it up, *ARE* THE PEOPLE.  The military is voluntary for one making their oath to the country, never an individual.  And the civilians are the dedicated fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, etc. across this country that are serious about defending this nation.  We form a brotherhood that is the stopgap against a dictator taking over.  But the MIC wasn’t the only thing he warned us about.  He admitted to many things he was concerned over but only discussed two.  The first was the MIC.  The second is what I am calling the ARC or Academic Research Complex.  He said: “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.  Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”  Is this not what we have with Anthropomorphic Climate Change?  Scientists are sacrificing their ethics for funding.  Science is being used as a weapon to press Prog policy.  So I ask you, what is the clear and present danger between the MIC and ARC?  Scientists give no oath to the nation and are easily bought.

[+and-then]

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/trump-changes-his-tune-on-climate-change-jailing-clinton/

So my question is, how many of his core promises can he walk away from and still continue to receive support from those who put him into office?  FTR, I'm glad that he's walking back the line on climate change.  Deciding to allow HRC and the Foundation to skate without any action is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.  I have no desire to necessarily see the lying crook in a cell but we either live in a nation of laws or we don't.  People are not stupid and at some point, that same lawlessness will spread throughout our system and it will be the death of our nation.  She, Huma, Lerner, and Koskinen need to be exposed and Lerner and Koskinen need PRISON TIME.

[Wickian]

I say give him a few months in office before the cries of fraud are yelled.  A new administration will go a LONG way in allowing investigations to the Clinton Foundation, the wall needs to get funding somewhere(congress has already passed a bill allowing for it's construction years ago I believe) and as far as foreign relations go, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he has many changes of heart after being allowed to know a lot more than he had before.