OK, how about this one? He ran on a populist message and was going to drain the swamp.

So far, his picks for cabinet positions are the opposite of that message.

He did tell the truth about one thing. He will not be bought by rich people and special interests. Because he doesn'the need to be bought. He was already in bed with them.

But I'm sure the Trumplodytes will have a ready made excuse for this too.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

If you think he broke a campaign promise, and you're not happy with the resulting direction he's moving in, feel free to complain. I don't have an issue with that.

"Hey, he said he was going to drain the swamp, and instead he's filling all his appointments with typical bottom feeding swamp dwellers!" Fair complaint, if that's your opinion of his appointments.

"Hey, he said he was going to make Muslims register with the government so we can monitor them, and instead he's respecting their civil rights! His supporters are fools! Ha ha ha!" Harmful complaint, even if technically true.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So where have you been when people did the same thing with Obama?

He didn't take the lead on health care. But you didn't want him to change health care and certainly weren't in favor of his ultimate goal with health care.

He didn't close Guantanamo. But you didn't want it closed down and the prisoners brought to the US or released.

Etc. Etc.

This isn't new behavior by people.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

He didn't take the lead on health care. But you didn't want him to change health care and certainly weren't in favor of his ultimate goal with health care.

What now? Who says he didn't take the lead on healthcare?

He didn't close Guantanamo. But you didn't want it closed down and the prisoners brought to the US or released.

I did want it closed down, actually. And there are plenty of people who wanted it kept open- or who favor drone strikes, or whatever- who give Obama credit for it. "I don't like Obama at all, but he did the right thing with Gitmo," is not an unusual statement.



This isn't new behavior by people.

I disagree, but either way, that doesn't make it any more helpful. Carry on and justify it to yourself however you want. It's still terrible behavior.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's pointless trying to make the case against Trump here or where Trump supporters are in an abundance - they just pile-on. Rational debate and discussion seems to have been tossed out the window. It's why I've kicked things 3+ years down the road - that's the time for the full assessment of the benefits or the drawbacks of Donald Trump.

That's if he makes it that far! EVERYTHING he's done so far as President-Elect has been unorthodox and controversial. But, that's getting into the micro good/bad analysis, that draws out those who want to pile-on anyone who questions him - so again, let's move things down the road a few years.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

If the idea is to reinforce the policies you'd like Trump to take, then sure, use the carrot and stick. I think the point here is to try to wake up some of the people who were so adamantly in favor of his candidacy, and who haven't seemed to be able to recognize the duplicity. Additionally, there's an attempt to analyze what kind of public and legislative support he will have, given the agenda he ran on, the agenda he now talks about, the types of people he's proposing to hire for significant positions, etc.

I'm sure there are some people who just want to poke Trump supporters in the eye. Maybe Sanuk falls into that group. I don't know.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Again, if these issues are as critical as Trump's opponents claim they are, the priority in their minds ought to be seeing that they don't actually get carried out. Many of them amounted to outright tyranny, to hear Trump's opponents tell it. That being the case, making sure that his supporters know he's a liar seems like a pretty trivial concern.

"Stalinist" might have been the most common description of his proposal to investigate, prosecute, and jail Clinton. And I'm quite sure that comparison was meant literally. Since then, he's been elected president. He backs off a proposal that you think undermines the rule of law and makes him a despotic strongman who abuses the office and the legal system to punish his political opponents, and the most important thing is to make sure his supporters know he broke a campaign promise?

It's just weird. Deeply skewed way of looking at things.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If the idea is to reinforce the policies you'd like Trump to take, then sure, use the carrot and stick. I think the point here is to try to wake up some of the people who were so adamantly in favor of his candidacy, and who haven't seemed to be able to recognize the duplicity. Additionally, there's an attempt to analyze what kind of public and legislative support he will have, given the agenda he ran on, the agenda he now talks about, the types of people he's proposing to hire for significant positions, etc.

I'm sure there are some people who just want to poke Trump supporters in the eye. Maybe Sanuk falls into that group. I don't know.


All good and what should be NORMAL political discourse, discussion and debate, at any time.

But when you question Trump on anything, you are quickly branded, an elitist, a lib-tard or worse. That's fine, if Trump supporters are all right on this, Trump is the most genius and greatest POTUS ever! So again, let's move it down the road 3 1/2 years and see where we are at?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I don't think anyone said it was the most important thing. Maybe you've joined the BarryP school of thought, that says the most important things to people are the things they post about in off-topics forums of triathlon websites.

As to whether it's "deeply skewed," I suspect you're overreacting a bit. This is completely typical stuff, which we saw with Pres Bush, Pres Obama, and I'm sure almost every President ever elected.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't think anyone said it was the most important thing. Maybe you've joined the BarryP school of thought, that says the most important things to people are the things they post about in off-topics forums of triathlon websites.

lol. No, and no need to be rude.

I meant that those who are gloating over this think the most important thing about Trump's backing away from jailing Hillary is to point out that his supporters have been duped. And my point is that concern should be such a distant second that it isn't on your radar screen. Again, because Trump's opponents thought the issue was so critically important in the first place.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sorry. I realize that was a low blow.

I wasn't one who thought investigation an/or prosecution of Sec Clinton was a vitally important issue. When Mr. Trump talked about it, I thought it smacked of pandering, and potentially threat of politically motivated retribution. But it wasn't a key issue for me, as I thought she violated the law in the first place, and wasn't entirely happy with how the FBI and DoJ resolved those issues.

For people who adamantly defended Sec Clinton's innocence, and for whom potential prosecution was a huge fear, I agree, their primary reaction to Mr. Trump's backtracking should be relief. However, this is the internet. The ratio of comments and threads begun about being happy or relieved vs those about outrage or discontent is certainly swayed in one direction, and it's not towards the positive. I think it's just human nature, and not some deeply skewed psychology. My guess is that the people who are commenting most about Trump followers being fooled are not the people who were so dedicated to Sec Clinton or her innocence. They're probably mostly people who were ambivalent or even negative toward Sec Clinton, but more so about Mr. Trump. There's a bit of an "I told you so" vibe going on there, which again, isn't really deeply skewed so much as normal human behavior.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If you didn't think the issue was that important in the first place, I agree that calling him out for going wishy washy on it falls more into normal partisan bickering. And I agree with you that this particular issue wasn't really that critical in the first place, because she did break the law, and threatening to investigate her for it isn't quite the same thing as throwing her in the gulag as a political prisoner.

But there are a lot of people who said that it did amount to that, and many of Trump's other campaign positions were just as bad. They didn't simply disagree with or oppose him and his positions, they argued vehemently that if he carried through on them, it would make him an outright dictator. Now he's moderating most of those positions, and instead of being happy about it, they're calling his supporters stupid for being duped.

I find that really weird. Like I said, if Obama had backed away from healthcare, I'd have been completely thrilled. Calling his voters suckers for falling for his promises would have been the furthest thing from my mind.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I thought the lock her up meme, was an important point prior to the election, as in a talking point with substance. The reality, if he made it one of his top priorities it would be distracting to the point of getting in the way of shit that really is important.

Just a general reply to the thread , nobody in particular.

Waiting to see what Belp assumed I was saying. ;)

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

All I can say is, where the hell have you been the last decade or more? When people turn out to be right about a politician, they like to make sure the other side knows they were right all along. Like I said, not really weird, just human nature. I'm not saying that it's the most mature attitude, but I have trouble believing that this is somehow new to you. These people may be happy that he's moderating a few positions, but they're still not happy that he was elected, and they want to stick it to the winning side if they can. Pretty typical stuff, seems to me.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Eh. I think you're overestimating the similarities between the Trump circus and prior politics.

There have been very few issues that were as viscerally felt as many of Trump's. There are half a dozen campaign issues- at least- that people literally believed would amount to a dictatorship if he carried through on them.

Trump wants to make Muslims register with the government, and that's equivalent to making Jews wear a yellow star in public. Alright. When he backs away from that position, the appropriate response is not to gloat that he broke a campaign promise. That kind of reaction is just weird, if you feel that strongly about the issue.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well again, I don't think the response is "weird." I think it's fairly typical. Whether or not it's appropriate is a separate issue.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I agree with you completely. Good luck I hope your point is seen at some point

Seems like the big difference this time around is that we are still so close to the election. Most president-elects wait longer, maybe even until they're in office, to back off of exuberant campaign promises.

Trump has had many dramatic changes of course since the election. Since the election is still fresh in the minds of many, they tend to blame Trump voters as much as Trump himself.

I don't think Trump will have time to deal with Clinton. He's going to have his hands full. I'm not sure if there is much value in prosecuting her now and, as you suggest, this was just a point of normal partisan bickering. If anything, a trial could backfire and expose things that the government doesn't want us to know. He might be wise to just distance himself from her.

If anybody will be opening any further investigations and/or prosecuting her, I bet it will be a newly-elected official looking to make a name for themselves. If that were to happen and she were found guilty, Trump could then pardon her and make himself look like the good guy. Everybody wins.

I think I just wrote the synopsis for a bad made-for-TV movie.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

The title of the thread is, "Trump makes supporters look foolish." Why isn't it, "Trump moderates stance to something reasonable"?


To a certain degree, all politicians tend to moderate stances once they are elected. Clinton publicly stated that for Democrats, you run on the left and govern from the centre. Bush was also far more right leaning when running and he also governed from the centre.


The difference is that Trump used extreme rhetoric. There is a difference in saying "we will shut down Gitmo" and saying "we will kill the families of terrorists". The stand on Gitmo was a pretty standard platform for the Democrats when Obama was running. Trumps words were highly sensational, roused up his follower and gave him a lot of air time.


Trumps sensationalism wasn't based on GOP policy, they were strictly to get headlines and win the election. It really was far more like the elections I saw in the Philippines, where Duterte won for saying he would kill drug dealers and throw corrupt politicians in Manila Bay. Those words got headlines and roused up a certain segment of the population.


Trump used the rhetoric to his advantage and days after winning, says the words sound good leading up to the election but now we can move on. I think there is a group of his supporters (not sure how many) that elected him based on the inflamed rhetoric and they thought he really was going to prosecute Clinton, build a wall, stop all Muslims from coming into the country etc. A lot of people didn't believe him of course, but a lot did.

Might need to call this the chump administration....

Newsweek will come out in morning with trump conflict story.