What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official*** Broken Promises to the Trumpettes (2 Viewers)

Yes, very similar. 

What does Trump have to do with Obama?  He didn't run against Obama.  If it's more of the same, then what are you so happy about?

If the best you have is well, Obama derp derp derp, then we can stop right here.  
They are both Presidents?

Show me the president that delivered all promises....I'll hang up and listen. 

 
They are both Presidents?

Show me the president that delivered all promises....I'll hang up and listen. 
Excuse me, goalpost mover:
 

We aren't talking about delivering on ALL promises.  We are talking about a running list of Trump promises, and where they stand.  The guy still hasn't gotten the ''-elect'' off the end of his title, and he is running in the opposite direction of every plank of his platform.  

But here's the major difference between Trump and Obama:  Trump will get to have a majority in the Senate and House, so he won't have Congress standing in his way, so he'll be able to get a lot more accomplished, he'll be able to really enact his vision for the country.  Obama had the least productive Congress in istory to fight, Trump will have no such excuse.  

The fact that he is already backing down from just about every stance he took during the election doesn't concern you?  Why not?  

Rhetorical question, I know the answer.  You don't really care if he's a joke of a president, as long as a the libs didn't win, right?  VICTORY!!!!!   :towelwave:

 
Wow, this thread is hilarious. I mean even Tim and some of the most die-hard Clinton supporters on here have gotten to the 5th level of grief by now.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Fine.  We'll get Britton up and throwing in the bullpen, and not bring him in to pitch.
It was better that way. They weren't close to being good enough. Also, if you're away, you have to hold a lead to win. 

 
GoBirds said:
Don't understand why Libs would bash this, wouldn't it be a good thing he is compromising to the whiny crybabies position? :lmao:

the whining will never end. 
He's not compromising.   There have been no negotiations, no deals, no discussions.    

He flat out lied to you, lied to your face.

 
He's not compromising.   There have been no negotiations, no deals, no discussions.    

He flat out lied to you, lied to your face.
You're lost...it's really sad you guys need to let it go. 

No matter how hard you try to frame it a certain way just because he put up a section of fence instead of wall no one that voted for him is going to say "man I should have voted for that POS Hillary" instead. She's horrible. 

There is a reason the House, Senate, and Presidency are all Republican. 

 
I thought the people elected Trump because they are sick of getting lied to by politicians who break all of their promises.

But now it's just business as usual - no biggie. 

:unsure:

 
I thought the people elected Trump because they are sick of getting lied to by politicians who break all of their promises.

But now it's just business as usual - no biggie. 

:unsure:
That's not correct. He was voted in by those that don't feel a part of the system any longer. He was able to reach those people to get the votes necessary to win. The only thing those people want are a shot a better job. They have already shown they don't care what he says by ignoring all his awful comments  

 
There is a reason the House, Senate, and Presidency are all Republican. 
There's actually separate reasons.  

The House is Republican because of gerrymandering efforts in Republican-dominated state legislatures back in 2010 that unethically redrew district lines to ensure a Republican majority in the House indefinitely.

The Senate is Republican because statewide elections are often dominated by low-information voters making irrational decisions.

The President-Elect is Republican thanks to an antiquated electoral college system originally developed to appease slave owners and supporters of slavery. For most of the country's history it hasn't mattered, but this time around it let the candidate who received almost 2 million fewer votes than the Democratic candidate take office.

 
I don't care for the electoral college but to complain about it now is sour grapes. We all know the rules. By the rules it wasn't even close. 

 
There is a reason the House, Senate, and Presidency are all Republican. 
Old people vote more than young people?

Regarding your previous post, I agree.  We all know the rules.  It doesn't matter that the rules suck.  If Democrats want to makes things their way, then get off your lazy ### and vote.  Otherwise, you are merely along for the ride.

 
I don't care for the electoral college but to complain about it now is sour grapes. We all know the rules. By the rules it wasn't even close. 
You were implying there is some sort of mandate from the people about the impending Republican-dominated government, when in fact they gamed the system and voided the will of the people.  

Trump won the election as it was designed, but it doesn't mean he got the most votes.  There was also a lot of suspicious activity surrounding the relaxation of the Voting Rights Act than greatly benefited Trump and hurt Clinton. I get that you don't give a #### about that because all you do here is ##### and moan about other people, but it's worth bringing up to people who care about reasons.

Any time you want to get around to answering earlier questions about a fair and proper system to evaluate Trump's presidency on an ongoing basis, and the role his campaign rhetoric should play in such an evaluation, we're all ears.

 
But but but my football team had more yards and we lost!!! The game is about touchdowns not yards cry babies. (Used football analogy to help the simpleton liberals)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Trump very clearly stated his plans for the wall, and went so far as to describe construction materials he would use.  
He also said "It just got 10 feet higher" hundreds of times. To take it literally that he is making a 3000 foot high wall is pretty silly, he was clearly using hyperbole and storytelling to show his intent to try his best to secure the border despite naysayers. 

 
You were implying there is some sort of mandate from the people about the impending Republican-dominated government, when in fact they gamed the system and voided the will of the people.  

Trump won the election as it was designed, but it doesn't mean he got the most votes.  There was also a lot of suspicious activity surrounding the relaxation of the Voting Rights Act than greatly benefited Trump and hurt Clinton. I get that you don't give a #### about that because all you do here is ##### and moan about other people, but it's worth bringing up to people who care about reasons.

Any time you want to get around to answering earlier questions about a fair and proper system to evaluate Trump's presidency on an ongoing basis, and the role his campaign rhetoric should play in such an evaluation, we're all ears.
I'll let you enjoy complaining to each other and making ridiculous excuses for the next 4 to 8 plus. 

Like Obama said, you can come along for the ride but you have to sit in the back.  :lmao:

 
He also said "It just got 10 feet higher" hundreds of times. To take it literally that he is making a 3000 foot high wall is pretty silly, he was clearly using hyperbole and storytelling to show his intent to try his best to secure the border despite naysayers. 
No, he didn't.  He said it once, and it was replayed hundreds of times.

To assign a position that I am taking everything he said literally is the kind of dumb tactic that would work if you were sending out a Tweet to InfoWars readers.  Give people here a bit more credit.  

The statement that he was building a wall--at all--was hyperbole?  Sorry, that is simply not the case, and there was never any statement from Trump suggesting he was building anything other than a wall.  As I said, he discussed the cost, and materials.

Try again.

 
Sabertooth said:
That's funny because when John Kerry did that he was called the flip flopper.  But I wouldn't expect anything less.  
So true, and the fact that Trump is trashing counterproductive political jockeying is really refreshing. The "establishment" secured voters by instilling fear in their base, making insincere promises that could never be kept and swearing never to change. 

Ultimately it is not the failure that damns you, it is the hypocrisy. Even if you disagree with Trump on everything, he has reserved the right to change his mind repeatedly. 

 
GoBirds:

I don't care for the electoral college but to complain about it now is sour grapes.
The phrase "sour grapes" implies that the complainer (Democrats) are no longer interested in an item (Electoral College) that the complainer had originally expressed interest in.

That analogy fails, since the complainer (Democrats) have not been interested in the Electoral College since at least November, 2000.

 
Keep it short so we have an official list. There are several promises listed in this thread, but it's too soon to tell if the promise has been broken. Once it is, I'll add to the official list.

  • 1. He will lock her up. He won't lock her up.
I know a lot of republicans are up in arms about this, but he is playing it perfectly.  If he comes out and says he's going after her then Obama will pardon her and Trump looks like the bad guy.  Now, Hillary doesn't know what Trump will really do.  If Obama pardons her now, then everyone will assume there's more skeletons in the closet and all the blame goes to her.  If Obama doesn't pardon her and Trump still wants to get her, he just lets Session's take all the heat for it.  He can officially wipe his hands and say that he has no control and should have no control on who is investigated for breaking the law.

 
GoBirds:
 

The phrase "sour grapes" implies that the complainer (Democrats) are no longer interested in an item (Electoral College) that the complainer had originally expressed interest in.

That analogy fails, since the complainer (Democrats) have not been interested in the Electoral College since at least November, 2000.
Guess they should have done something about it by now?

well it is the Dems so 16 years not to accomplish anything sounds about right. 

 
That's not correct. He was voted in by those that don't feel a part of the system any longer. He was able to reach those people to get the votes necessary to win. The only thing those people want are a shot a better job. They have already shown they don't care what he says by ignoring all his awful comments  
I'm just going based on what a number of posters have posted on here. 

 
You were implying there is some sort of mandate from the people about the impending Republican-dominated government, when in fact they gamed the system and voided the will of the people.  

Trump won the election as it was designed, but it doesn't mean he got the most votes.  There was also a lot of suspicious activity surrounding the relaxation of the Voting Rights Act than greatly benefited Trump and hurt Clinton. I get that you don't give a #### about that because all you do here is ##### and moan about other people, but it's worth bringing up to people who care about reasons.
I just don't buy this, and I'm a pretty far left liberal.  The system is laid out before us.  Yes, there are challenges.  So what?  We have more people.  All we had to do was vote.  We didn't get the job done.  Hopefully next time we will.

 
massraider said:
Trump has very clearly stated many things. But this one statement is the one we should be listening to?

OK, sure.

Funny we didn't hear any of this during the election. I don't recall Trumpkins discussing the''general direction", it was very specific policies.

This is lame spin, digging up quotes from May  on one specific topic, and applying it to all of his plans. What a joke.
"Funny we didn't hear any of this during the election"

I can see how you might have missed it if you were not taking President Trump seriously during the campaign. 

President Trump has repeatedly used phraseology  throughout his campaign like "I don't know but there is a problem" "We have a serious problem we have to look into" "I don't know but we have to do something" Every rally he would say he doesn't know what is going on but we need to get to work on some things. President Trump has been very open about not knowing all the answers. 

 
There's actually separate reasons.  

The House is Republican because of gerrymandering efforts in Republican-dominated state legislatures back in 2010 that unethically redrew district lines to ensure a Republican majority in the House indefinitely.

The Senate is Republican because statewide elections are often dominated by low-information voters making irrational decisions.

The President-Elect is Republican thanks to an antiquated electoral college system originally developed to appease slave owners and supporters of slavery. For most of the country's history it hasn't mattered, but this time around it let the candidate who received almost 2 million fewer votes than the Democratic candidate take office.
The aggregate Republican vote for the House is 3.2M more than the aggregate Democratic vote.  Not sure that gerrymandering is the only reason for the Republican House majority.

 
Trump:  I'm going to appoint a special prsecutor to look into Clinton emails.

Trump:  If I was president, you'd be in jail.

Trump becomes president.

Trump:  What I meant was, HIllary has been through a lot, and suffered in a lot of diferent ways.  

To quote the deep thinkers here:   :lmao:

 
The aggregate Republican vote for the House is 3.2M more than the aggregate Democratic vote.  Not sure that gerrymandering is the only reason for the Republican House majority.
Has that been the case every cycle since the redistricting of 2010?

If aggregate vote is so important, is it fair to say the wrong candidate was named President?

 
Back on topic, I would like to hear from some people who voted for Trump about what would be a fair and proper way to evaluate his administration now and going forward.  

Does he get graded on a curve since both houses of Congress are in the same party as the President?

How much does his campaign rhetoric/promises/taking points matter when evaluating how good a job he is doing?

What's the most specific the President-elect ever got about his memorable-but-nebulous campaign catchphrases like "Make America Great Again" and "Drain The Swamp"?  Is there a way to measure how well he is achieving those goals?

 
He also said "It just got 10 feet higher" hundreds of times. To take it literally that he is making a 3000 foot high wall is pretty silly, he was clearly using hyperbole and storytelling to show his intent to try his best to secure the border despite naysayers. 
You are saying Trump was never going to build an actual wall?  And that all his supporters understood that?

 
Has that been the case every cycle since the redistricting of 2010?

If aggregate vote is so important, is it fair to say the wrong candidate was named President?
The aggregate vote is not important on its own.  You said that gerrymandering was the reason for the House majority.  I was just bringing up some evidence that there might be other more important factors.

And no, the candidate named president was not the wrong one based on the constitutional method in place for naming presidents.

 
Back on topic, I would like to hear from some people who voted for Trump about what would be a fair and proper way to evaluate his administration now and going forward.  

Does he get graded on a curve since both houses of Congress are in the same party as the President?

How much does his campaign rhetoric/promises/taking points matter when evaluating how good a job he is doing?

What's the most specific the President-elect ever got about his memorable-but-nebulous campaign catchphrases like "Make America Great Again" and "Drain The Swamp"?  Is there a way to measure how well he is achieving those goals?
Didn't vote for Trump, but he should be evaluated the same as every other president under the constitution:

Does he safeguard our liberty?

Does he faithfully administer the laws duly passed by Congress?

 
I know a lot of republicans are up in arms about this, but he is playing it perfectly.  If he comes out and says he's going after her then Obama will pardon her and Trump looks like the bad guy.  Now, Hillary doesn't know what Trump will really do.  If Obama pardons her now, then everyone will assume there's more skeletons in the closet and all the blame goes to her.  If Obama doesn't pardon her and Trump still wants to get her, he just lets Session's take all the heat for it.  He can officially wipe his hands and say that he has no control and should have no control on who is investigated for breaking the law.
Keeping hope alive.

 
GrandpaRox said:
Google his 100 day plan. You seem to be able to use a computer.
Jesus, we're talking about what he really wants here ace.   #1 on his 100 day plan is term limits which is clearly out the window.  That's a great start.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top