Trumps Broken Promises

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Monday, August 17, 2026 22:33
VIEWED: 18245
PAGE 10 of 17

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
So you're not saying anything really...

---

I think it might be that in a couple of years’ time, we’ll think it was a great thing that Trump won. Because if he’d lost, and Hillary had won, she’d have been the most hated president of modern times, and then Trump and Bannon would have used that to build an alt-right media empire, create an avalanche of hatred, and then there might have been a more disciplined candidate the next time round, rather than someone impersonating a competent leader. Because he lied about who he is, Trump may in truth prove to have been the self-absorbed person who ruins the populist brand in the United States.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

... Trump may in truth prove to have been the self-absorbed person who ruins the populist brand in the United States.

---

You seem to think that populism is a bad thing - that people should stop hoping for a government that represents them, and just accept the will of their masters who engineer their future.

You didn't like the populism of Sanders; you don't like the populism of Trump. OTOH you really do like the globalist fake-liberalism of Hillary and the people she represents, who want to divide people over bathrooms in order to deny them jobs for profit.

Your pov is becoming much clearer. At first I thought you are simply a neurotic partisan, and that you just can't help yourself. But if you TRULY BELIEVED / Texans/ republicans/ USers/ 'people'/ are too stupid to vote their own interests, you'd be completely secure in the idea that populism will just wither away from sheer lack of intelligence. Only you're not. You think that populism as a concept needs to be specifically killed, maybe even by one horrific Mr. Trump experience.

So your constant railing against Trump is a far more self-interested and intentional attempt to kill populism than neurotic accident.

What IS neurotic is you spending so much time and energy at it on one very obscure part of the internet.

---

---

---

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND, I'm trying to find a rational, realistic narrative in your constant splatterings here, and quite honestly it's hard to tell WHAT you're saying. You've just referred to a SCIENCE FICTION SERIES, fer chrissakes... a science fiction series dreamt up by a quintessential coastal-style progressive BTW ... to support your views on what working-class Americans think and feel?

It's clear, though, that you hate working-class Americans, whom you conflate with the ever-hated Texas GOP.

What you don't seem to realize is that you ... yes, YOU ... are as big a problem as the people that you despise.

Quote:

---

The American working class liberal has strongly supported the wars undertaken by the United States Obama and Hillary, and it can see that by never winning them, the United States has always lost them. The American heartland coastal elite has always been emotionally invested in global power. Successive defeats in war left deep wounds in its collective consciousness, as did the indifferent respect paid to veterans interventionists returning from the battlefields. That the country with the world’s most powerful military had so often been unable to prevail over its enemies "tyranny", the heartland elites attributed to faint-hearted and feckless leadership. Hurt pride resulted in simultaneous calls for a complete withdrawal from foreign adventures, and for an unrestrained use of military force against Russia. [INTERVENTIONIST] Leaders such as Trump Obama seem to emerge easily in countries with a colonial past—the United States, France, the UK, the Netherlands, and also Russia. Collective memories of being at the center of the world, or at least of a world of one’s own, seem to make it more difficult to accept relegation to the status of one country among others.

---

Fixed it for you.

It's the "progressives" who howled to overthrow Tito, Saddam, Yanukovich, Qaddafi, Assad, and have lined up against Putin, on the basis that they are "tyrants" .... without ever noticing that we do business quite nicely with our own set of cooperative tyrants, jihadists, and neo-Nazis.

It seems to me that you think that we can overthrow anyone, destroy any nation, kill any number of people, and all should be forgiven because you "meant well". That YOUR way of thinking and YOUR morality is so "special" that you feel free to impose it with the nosecone of a missile, and that YOU can't accept being merely a nation among nations, and not "the indispensable nation" (as Obama has said, more than once). Yanno, a little self-reflection would do you good.

Quote:

---

136,669,237 voted in November for President. Maybe a quarter of them are anti-war.

---

Hmm... where did you pull that stat from ... out of your ass?

People voted for Obama over Hillary in part because HE voted against the war in Iraq, while she voted for it. People voted for Trump in part because HE promised to restore better relations with Russia while she promoted a more "kinetic" approach to Syria.

People can be driven to war, it is true. A relentless media campaign can cause the heartland to become so fearful or liberals to become so outraged that they will take to the streets to demand blood. And despite the fact that you ... the supposed intelligent liberal elite... have seen this over and over again, you keep falling for the same bullshit again and again.

Like I said, a look in the mirror might do you some good. YOU are part of the problem, hon.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabil

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

SIGGY, I'm trying to find a rational, realistic narrative in your constant splatterings here, and quite honestly it's EASY to tell WHAT you're really saying behind all the blather.= GSTRING

---

GSTRING --- WHAT am I "really" saying? That monopolies squeeze the life out of economies? That we shouldn't go bombing people unless our safety at the border is threatened? That globalism will suck the decision-making capacity out of our Federal, state, and local democracies? That our government and media are dominated by an oligarchy? That we need to restore democracy to our nation, and become as self-reliant as possible?

And, what are YOU really saying? That none of the above is true?

Yanno, you have NEVER addressed our American interests. Are you sure that you're really American, and that you have our interests at heart?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Yanno, you have NEVER addressed our American interests. Are you sure that you're really American, and that you have our interests at heart? - SIGNY

---

Yeah, I thought not.

You've been nothing but a liar and a globalist troll since you started posting.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Okay, now for the promise that Trump has broken that I thought was the most important: making nice with Russia. And hopefully by extension, not meddling so much in the Mideast and elsewhere.

It seems to me that Trump has repudiated CIA-based "regime change" model, which is good. On the other hand, he seems to have thrown his lot in with the military, and THEY seem to be as nucking futs as the CIA .. steaming carriers here there and elsewhere, and firing missiles at whomever they please.

At best, it will generate significant international backlash. At worst, it will trigger a global war. Our military can't attack n Korea without triggering China, and can't attack Iran without triggering Russia. And then what?

If Trump truly meant what he said, then he's going to have to get rid of the military nut-cases in his staff, as well as the spooks in the staff.

KIKI- I agree. No quid pro quo between the Dems/ Awan for the CIA backing off on "Russia!". Rip the bandage off.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Funny story I read in the paper and online: Wasn't it a certain Mr. Trump who bombed Syria not too long ago. He ordered to destroy an airfield runway (or some such), or am I mistaken?

Isn't Syria backed by Putin The Shirtless!?

Curious way to making nice with our Russian pals, isn't it?

P.S. I wonder how he's going to blame this on Obama/Hillary?


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, now for the promise that Trump has broken that I thought was the most important: making nice with Russia. And hopefully by extension, not meddling so much in the Mideast and elsewhere.

It seems to me that Trump has repudiated CIA-based "regime change" model, which is good. On the other hand, he seems to have thrown his lot in with the military, and THEY seem to be as nucking futs as the CIA .. steaming carriers here there and elsewhere, and firing missiles at whomever they please.

At best, it will generate significant international backlash. At worst, it will trigger a global war. Our military can't attack n Korea without triggering China, and can't attack Iran without triggering Russia. And then what?

If Trump truly meant what he said, then he's going to have to get rid of the military nut-cases in his staff, as well as the spooks in the staff.

KIKI- I agree. No quid pro quo between the Dems/ Awan for the CIA backing off on "Russia!". Rip the bandage off.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well, I see somebody has the nerve to tackle this promise besides me.

It seems to me that, as I have said before, there has been an ongoing conflict between the State Dept/ CIA (Obama's and Hillary's go-to group) versus the Pentagon (Bush's go-to group) and nowhere is this more apparent than in Syria: they have been dissing, undercutting and sniping each other since the beginning of "regime change".

Now that the CIA program of funding jihadists in Syria has ended, and the military has been given more-or-less free rein to conduct its actions anywhere in the world (eg MOAB in Afghanistan), it's as if the Pentagon - like a pupil eager to show up a hated classmate - is trying to show that it can do "the job" "better" than the CIA.

Unfortunately, it looks like the military is being allowed decide "what" "the job" is, not just how to do it. Trump isn't providing essential civilian guidance to our military.

Trump's choice for chief of staff, Gen John Kelly, is following the Trump line: Make nice with Russia, but antagonize Iran, N Korea, and China.

I understand the grotch against N Korea. I think that they way we've been handling N Korea for the past 60ish years (threats and sanctions) has been incredibly ineffective, and "more of the same" isn't going to get us anywhere new, but still...

I also get the grotch against China, altho I think the issue is primarily economic, not military.

But Iran??? Every military person that Trump appointed - Flynn, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster - has an intense suspicion/ hatred of Iran.

Any thoughts on why this is so?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

McMaster And Mattis [SHOULD] Have Twelve Months To Succeed In Afghanistan

Authored by James Durso via RealClearDefense.com,

Recently we learned that Erik Prince, founder of the security firm Blackwater Worldwide, and Steve Feinberg, financier, and owner of DynCorp International, a leading military logistics, and training contractor, approached the Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, with their plan to use contractors instead of American troops to stabilize Afghanistan. The meeting was arranged at the behest of President Trump’s advisors who want to ensure their boss is apprised of the full range of options in Afghanistan.

The Secretary decided to stick with an in-house solution, that is to say, more of the same, for a war we are, in his words, “not winning.” Secretary Mattis is no enemy of contractors, but hopefully, he reflected on what Messrs. Prince and Feinberg said before he briefed President Trump last week on the way ahead in Afghanistan.

Let’s review our progress in Afghanistan:

Provinces under central government control: according to data from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, “the Afghan government controls or influences just 52 percent of the nation’s districts today [February 2017] compared to 72 percent in November 2015.”

*Opium production increased 43% from 2015 to 2016 and has been on an upward trend since 2001.

*U.S. casualties: 2385 dead and 20,290 wounded military; 1691 dead contractors.

* Money spent: over $700 billion, though some analysts say the true cost is in the trillions.

I previously said we should let the Afghans and the neighbors – Iran, Pakistan, and China – try to sort it out, and minimize our work with Afghanistan to counternarcotics and intelligence sharing while we work with the Central Asian states to secure their borders. During the campaign, candidate Trump described the war in Afghanistan as “a complete waste” and has focused his efforts since inauguration on everything else, leaving the policy review to the national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, which brings us to the problem…

General McMaster spent several months trying to convince the President to commit more troops and agree to a four-year timeline in advance of May’s NATO summit meeting; he was blocked by the secretaries of Defense and State. McMaster then made a second try at last week’s National Security Council Principals Committee, only to get pushback from Trump. Seen in that light, the suggestion that the White House would consider the Prince-Feinberg plan was a billboard-sized hint that the President does not want a more-of-the-same solution.

There is no Afghanistan “policy vacuum,” General McMaster has simply forgotten that it is his job to get in sync with the President, not the other way around. His thinking is emblematic of the military’s approach to sunk costs – the dead and wounded soldiers – as opposed to a businessman’s. The military may be reluctant to abandon a political objective if it feels doing so will dishonor the sacrifice of the soldiers who died and were wounded trying to achieve the objective. It is an understandable sentiment, but illogical to someone with a business background asking for a solution to a $700 billion campaign almost two decades old and with no end in sight.

President Trump understandably wants to see if his administration can stabilize Afghanistan, so using contractors may give him the option to try something new while reducing military casualties that grab the headlines. (He is no doubt aware that the parts of the country that provide most of the military’s troops are part of his electoral base.)

If President Trump approves a McMaster plan that Mattis is comfortable with, as Defense will have to be on board, he should give them twelve months – not four years - to show real progress – not PowerPoint progress - defined as more provinces under central government control, and a sharp reduction in opium cultivation. Metrics such as the number of Afghan police and soldiers trained are m

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME