Trump's Promises

[PozBearWI]

Donnie has not ever had the reputation of living up to his promises.  Rather, he makes a deal with someone, then when the work is done they have to sue for payment. 

[tobetrained]

@PozBearWI And? Why do you down vote my previous comment when I was referencing other points?

But to your comment, progressives/Democrats do the same thing. For instance, as I ref'd, their push of DEI -- regardless of its effects. It's saying, "you live by our values, or else and collateral damage is fine."

If you read history, democracies have fallen to both Oligarchs -- which Trump is one, and I'm not a supporter of his, as stated elsewhere -- as well as extremist parties and partisanship. The latter is where Democrats and progressives have moved.

I have every right to express my avoidance of a protest developed by one of those sides, particularly when it espouses (supposed) democratic intent and in a statement which was (in a comment) directed to me.

Or, was that your way of bullying me into silence?

[hntnhole]

Thanks for the response, tobetrained.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, PozBearWI said:

Rather, he makes a deal with someone, then when the work is done they have to sue for payment.

Agreed.  And, it's really a confounding character-flaw to analyze.  How is it that some guy - any guy - gets that kind of mindset? 

The only potential answer I can figure out is, he was thoroughly spoiled as a little kid, and has never outgrown that emotional rot.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

It's saying, "you live by our values, or else and collateral damage is fine."

I have no idea what your reference to "collateral damage" is.  If you would make it clear, I would appreciate it.  Thanks.  

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

 

 

[Pozzible]

2 hours ago, tobetrained said:

If you read history, democracies have fallen to both Oligarchs -- which Trump is one, and I'm not a supporter of his, as stated elsewhere -- as well as extremist parties and partisanship. The latter is where Democrats and progressives have moved.

I don’t understand why you say that the Democrats have become extremists. Can you clarify?

[Pozzible]

20 hours ago, tobetrained said:

As well, we're currently witnessing a gov't shutdown where Dems are using the filibuster to shut everything down -- driven by progressives.

Democrats haven’t been filibustering at all. Ten votes have been held in the Senate and Republicans lost. Not due to filibuster, but because Senate rules require 60 votes in order to pass legislation. And Democrats are opposed to the cuts to the ACÁ. The Republicans have the ability to change the 60 vote threshold at any time. Either they feel like that would be held against them by voters or that they don’t want to set that precedent since Democrats will be in the majority sometime. McConnell already used this “nuclear option” to change to simple majority for judicial confirmations.

[Pozzible]

On 6/10/2025 at 11:13 PM, nanana said:

Not meant to be a rhetorical question, but what metrics do you think we could hold Trump accountable for, in terms of keeping his promises (whether you think they are hideous promises or not)?  And then, also adding whether the promises are good?  Here are some thoughts: 

1) Trump has often said he's against war and nation-building and in favor of letting other countries be successful on their own without US money and firearms.  Has he said this consistently enough (without at the same time saying the opposite of this) to consider it a "promise"? If so, was it a good promise that will move the country in a better direction? 

2) Trump has been pretty clear about illegal immigration.  Is this a campaign "promise" that can be measured?  A good promise?

3) Trump has been pretty clear that military standards are very low and that improving performance is more important than female and trans participation in the military.  Is this a "promise"?  A good "promise"?

4) Trump has said he wants to cut spending.  Is this a "promise"? A good "promise"?

5) Trump has said he's strongly in favor of free speech? "Promise"? "Good" promise?

6) Make America Healthy Again, promise? good? 

If not these, are there any other discernible "promises" he has made that can be used to determine success measures?  

#1 - This has been well discussed by others. I will add that we shouldn’t overlook what Trump is doing with Venezuela. He’s bombed 6 or 7 boats that he says were transporting fentanyl to US. But we’ve seen no supporting evidence. And it wasn’t even clear that the boats were headed to US. So at least he could have watched and waited. And now he’s sent CIA into Venezuela, which seems ominous. He’s pledging to give Argentina a $40 billion bailout from US money. Of course he’s qualified that to say he’ll give it to them only if his preferred candidate wins presidential election. (You would think by now that US should just keep its nose out of the Southern Americas.) Changing Department of Defense to Department of War doesn’t really sound like he wants to oppose war.

#2 - Stopping illegal immigration to US seems like a good idea to me. Mostly that should be in changing things at the border. Especially useful would be to vastly expand the number of immigration judges. There was bipartisan agreement in congress on new immigration policies last year, but Trump told Republicans leaders to kill that idea. He wanted the immigration issue to run on.  Has Trump kept his promise on the question as @nanana asked it? I suppose so. However, many people are appalled by the way Trump has handled the issue. After he was in office he said that we’re only going after the worst of the worst. Hardened criminals. But that’s not what has been happening. You don’t find the hardened criminals by arresting Hispanics at Home Depot looking for jobs. You don’t find hardened criminals by arrresting people who are coming out of their scheduled appearances at immigration courts. You don’t find hardened criminals by getting lists of Hispanic names from IRS. (Undocumented people who are paying taxes aren’t hardened criminals.) And the way ICE has been used is unforgivable. In the US that I know, we don’t allow people dressed in black, wearing masks, who won’t identify themselves to act as law enforcement. 

#3 - I suppose this may be a promise kept. But I don’t like the way they’re doing it.

#4 - Definitely a broken promise. Giving a $4 trillion tax cut to the other oligarchs is not a way to cut spending. Taking a chainsaw wielded by young twenty-somethings to decimate important components of government that keep our country running ends up costing more than it saves. Cutting foreign aid (which was a tiny reduction in spending) is not a good look. We destroyed tons of warehouses where needed food and medicines. Abominable. 
 

#5 - Free speech? Seriously? Rounding up foreign students who have peacefully protested and then deporting them is not free speech. Forcing universities to eliminate courses studying gender or Black history is not free speech. Threatening people who pointed out problems with Charlie Kirk’s advocacy is not free speech. Extorting law firms to only take clients who are Trump approved is not free speech. Bribing tech oligarchs to monitor liberal speech on their platforms is not free speech. Suing organizations who support Democratic issues or raising money for Democrats running for office is not free speech. And there’s so much more.

#6 - MAHA. 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂 🥲🥲🥲 Scaring parents to not vaccinate their kids, leaving WHO, mass firing CDC employees, firing scientists who work on disease prevention, cutting funds to university projects which have made breakthroughs in medical science, cutting free lunch programs to needy kids, cutting programs in Medicaid and Medicare, reducing subsidies on the ACA, are all antithetical to making us healthy.

Stopping inflation on Day 1 was a promise not kept. Ending wars in Ukraine and Gaza on Day 1 was a promise not kept. That he would end “weaponization of Justice department”? Laughable. I’m not sure it was a “promise” but he campaigned saying he would release the Epstein files. Hasn’t happened.

[tobetrained]

@hntnhole you asked

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I have no idea what your reference to "collateral damage" is.  If you would make it clear, I would appreciate it.  Thanks. 

I'll answer on two fronts, 1 personal, where I am collateral damage to their policies, 2 public, where many others are:

1.  Personal: I've summarized above and wrote elsewhere how DEI policies have hurt my ability to get a job. I'll restate (was just trying to avoid duplication
   • I was omitted via online app for a job I was very qualified for, so went thru an internal former colleague. I made it to final round of three. I found out thru colleague job was reduced for highest ranked woman and all final candidates -- incl. me -- were omitted
   • same process as above, different company. In this case, job was eliminated and merged with another to hire a person of color. In both these two, my former colleagues were informed as part of exec team. Otherwise, like many others, I would not have known.
   • a third example: in an panel interview (not with HR), the final Q of 12 was, "We believe in DEI policies, why should we hire you?"
2.  Public: As stated above, Dems are effectively filibustering to keep the government shutdown ( @Pozzible see below ). As they've rightly stated in past, shutting down the government hurts many people for income to services. All those people not getting paid, not getting services, etc. are the collateral damage. Dems lost the election. Remember it was progressives, just a few years ago, who tried to do away with this 60-vote threshold as it wasn't democracy -- a simple majority. Now they're using for their own ends.

Quickly, see above for @Pozzible, it is filibustering as the filibuster is what requires 60 votes to surpass -- and that's where we are. I don't think we need to play semantics. Here's a quick write-up on wikipedia: 

[think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

To recap my above point.

Democracies have fallen not just by oligarchs and despots... but extremist partisans by political parties. These groups, once becoming extreme, have done all sorts of things from exiling those that don't profess allegiance (to them or their ideas) to outright killing. They also try change rules when they don't work for them.

Usually, this is a progression:

1. Justifying hypocrisy. See shutdown.
2. Trying to change the rules when they don't work for them. See filibuster reform, or even Pete Buttigieg's talk of expanding the Supreme Court simply for political purposes.
3. Purifying the party. As I wrote above, for one example, how moderates like Manchin and Sinema were exiled by left wing re: filibuster. It was among his stated reasons Ruben Gallego primaried Sinema in the 2024 cycle.
4. Obedience. @hntnhole even you ref'd this in part of you comments above on page 1. I'm paraphrasing here, so not using quotes as I'm also NOT personally calling you out re: intent. But it's along the line, If you don't say something you're part of the problem. Forced adherence is the start of getting people to stop thinking for themselves. It's the start of blind obedience. To marry that with forced speech is the opposite of free speech. Free speech is the right to say what you want which INCLUDES being silent. Forced speech has been a mantra of progressives for a few years now.
5. Physical violence. I hope this is clear. The left, unequivocally outraged in most cases of mass shootings, etc. has already downplayed or, at minimum, qualified violence from the left. For Kirk and Trump, statements like, "...it's not OK, but..." Violence is not OK, period, exclamation point. There is no qualification. Many commentators, on both political sides, make horrible statements everyday. No one should wait for a person to be killed for it to pointed out about them, "...it's not OK, but..."

I hope this more clearly states my point. And, hopefully, we can all avoid any tit-for-tat or child-like "but they do it" counter-points. Agreed, "they" do. But that stuff is for the playground. I'm always happy to debate on points/substance.

[Pozzible]

2 hours ago, tobetrained said:

Public: As stated above, Dems are effectively filibustering to keep the government shutdown ( @Pozzible see below ). As they've rightly stated in past, shutting down the government hurts many people for income to services. All those people not getting paid, not getting services, etc. are the collateral damage. Dems lost the election. Remember it was progressives, just a few years ago, who tried to do away with this 60-vote threshold as it wasn't democracy -- a simple majority. Now they're using for their own ends.

Republicans eliminated 60-vote threshold (the “nuclear option”) to confirm Supreme Court nominees. after Dems filibustered Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.  In 2013, Dems had changed the rule for presidential nominees other than Supreme Court after Republicans filibustered multiple nominations. So whether it’s a 50 vote threshold or a 60 vote threshold, the concept of filibustering is the same (when one person holds the floor speaking as long as s/he can to delay a vote). Eventually the person will have to sit down which will end that filibuster. It annoys the majority party, but almost always the speaker will sit down in 10 hours or less. 

[think before following links] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

So Dems are not filibustering to keep government shut down Senate has voted 10 times and Dems have voted against it each time. The House is a different situation. Speaker Mike Johnson has told Republicans to stay home and hasn’t held any votes. (Presumably, so he won’t have to swear in a newly elected Democratic Representative because she would be the 218th vote for a petition requiring the Epstein files to be released and Trump says no.)

You’re absolutely right that there is a lot of collateral damage while government is shut down. Legally, the government employees who don’t get paid will be paid their backpay when the government reopens (however Trump says he may not comply with that law.) Nevertheless, there a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck and will be suffering great harm while they wait for government to reopen. Almost every shutdown has been due to Republican recalcitrance.

[think before following links] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-history-congress/

This shutdown is the first significant one that has been caused by Democrats. 

“As the minority party, Democrats don't have much power. However, Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes to pass any spending bill out of the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber.

This time, Democrats are using that leverage to push for renewing expanded health-care subsidies for people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Their proposal would make permanent enhanced tax breaks that are otherwise due to expire at the end of the year and make them available to more middle-income households.

If those tax breaks are allowed to expire, health insurance costs will increase dramatically for many of the 24 million Americans who get their coverage through the ACA, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The impact would be most acute in Republican-controlled states that have refused to expand the Medicaid health plan for the poor”

[think before following links] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-government-shutdown-1.7647414

So, yes. There are a lot of federal workers who will be hurt by the shutdown  But Dems are fighting for the 24 million people whose health insurance would be greatly increased preventing many from having access to healthcare. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene is siding with the Dems in this instance because she’s hearing from her constituents how horribly impacted they will be by the increase in cost of their insurance.

Republicans (mainly Trump) refuse to negotiate. So, no, the Dems aren’t filibustering which would be a one day problem  Shutdown will continue until one side hollers “uncle.”

 

 

 

[Pozzible]

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

Trying to change the rules when they don't work for them. See filibuster reform, or even Pete Buttigieg's talk of expanding the Supreme Court simply for political purposes.

People are ALWAYS talking about things like filibuster reform. That’s different from actively trying to make the changes. 

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

Purifying the party. As I wrote above, for one example, how moderates like Manchin and Sinema were exiled by left wing re: filibuster. It was among his stated reasons Ruben Gallego primaried Sinema in the 2024 cycle.

Or how Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were exiled from Republican Party?

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

Forced adherence is the start of getting people to stop thinking for themselves. It's the start of blind obedience. To marry that with forced speech is the opposite of free speech. Free speech is the right to say what you want which INCLUDES being silent.

Which is absolutely what Trump is doing. Deporting college students who have study visas due to their voiced opinions, eliminating funding to universities that won’t comply with his personal mandates on what courses they can offer to students, instructing the Attorney General to indict people who have spoken/acted against him, getting Colbert’s show cancelled and getting Kimmel taken of his show, extorting law firms to agree not to take clients who oppose Trump. Etc, etc, etc.

 

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

For Kirk and Trump, statements like, "...it's not OK, but..." Violence is not OK, period, exclamation point

You may have heard this from some individuals on the Left, but not from anyone in office and generally not from anyone other that a few twitter (x) comments. In virtually every case Democrats have said that political violence is never acceptable. That doesn’t mean people on the left haven’t noted Kirk’s charged rhetoric. 

 

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

And, hopefully, we can all avoid any tit-for-tat or child-like "but they do it" counter-points.

Sorry if you think this is “tit-for-tat”. I, too, am willing to engage in political debate. But it’s hard to do that with a long lists of concepts. Much better to do one idea at a time. 

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible You're kinda making my point. In you're first note, you're justifying the hypocrisy,  re: shutdown: as Dems are doing it/fighting for "..." fill in the blank. You're justifying collateral damage for Dem political gain. What Dems "are fighting for" isn't actually the issue, they're just doing it to be obstinate using people's incomes and necessary services to get what they want.

In your second comment, you're not debating the point(s) in and of themselves. You're rationalizing based on Republican actions... the, "they're doing it too" argument. Remember when growing up a parent would ask, "if they jump off a bridge are you going to?"

Also, you wrote, 

20 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

ut it’s hard to do that with a long lists of concepts. Much better to do one idea at a time. 

I gave very specific examples for each one. but, yes, I was trying to answer specific questions you and another person asked.

You said,

33 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

People are ALWAYS talking about things like filibuster reform. That’s different from actively trying to make the changes. 

Progressive did not just talk. As stated, they used it to purify the party and push out moderates. See link as an example. 

[think before following links] https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2023/04/19/ruben-gallego-attack-kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-may-regret-it/70130218007/

 

[Pozzible]

8 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

You're kinda making my point. In your first note, you're justifying the hypocrisy,  re: shutdown: as Dems are doing it/fighting for "..." fill in the blank. You're justifying collateral damage for Dem political gain. What Dems "are fighting for" isn't actually the issue, they're just doing it to be obstinate using people's incomes and necessary services to get what they want.

Yes, and no. Yes, I’m justifying it. But they’re actually not doing it to be obstinate at all. Getting affordable healthcare to everyone is a core principle of the Democratic Party. That’s what they’re doing here. And as one of my sources noted, the majority of the 24 million people who would be most impacted are Republicans in red states. It’s a negotiating tactic that usually would lead to compromise. However, with Trump, lol bets are off. He’ll let it all burn down. People are getting notice that their healthcare premiums will double, triple, and sometimes more. These people, too, would be collateral damage. 

[Pozzible]

18 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

In your second comment, you're not debating the point(s) in and of themselves. You're rationalizing based on Republican actions... the, "they're doing it too" argument. Remember when growing up a parent would ask, "if they jump off a bridge are you going to?"

But in expressing your ideas, you rely on one example that might prove your point. So yes, I give counter examples. But to fully engage with a concept, we need discussion on each one. Which I’m happy to do.

[Pozzible]

23 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

Progressive did not just talk. As stated, they used it to purify the party and push out moderates. See link as an example. 

You’re missing two different points of mine. Purifying the party absolutely happens at least as much with Republicans. You mentioned Sinema and Manchin. I pointed to Cheney and Kinzinger. But also Romney. However, most of the purifying happens in primary elections.