Take off those rose colored glasses. The first of many ridiculous promises hits the dirt.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail...l?client=safari

He strikes me as a no BS kind of man. I damn sure didn't vote for him in the primary and have no adoration for him. I do think he'll do what he said he would until he proves different. He won and I don't see him reaching across the isle to pander to democrat losers. I think we'll see a lot of the bullsht forced down our throats by the current administration gone the first quarter he's in office. I think this election was nothing less than a miracle and America will get back on the right track. [/quote]

Take off those rose colored glasses. The first of many ridiculous promises hits the dirt.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail...l?client=safari[/quote]

He was on record back in Feb 2016 that he would keep the pre-existing conditions clause. You shouldn't be surprised. Also, you can't just cancel something on day one without a replacement.

People on both sides need to understand campaign rhetoric and promises are one world and real life is another. He still is 1000% better than HRC.

I know a lot of folks on here wanted Cruz, however his extreme Conservative/Right views don't play well to a large part of the US. If they did, he would have won the primary. BTW, HRC would have smoked Cruz in the general election. No way in hell Cruz would have won those Rustbelt states...

Take off those rose colored glasses. The first of many ridiculous promises hits the dirt.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail...l?client=safari[/quote]

He was on record back in Feb 2016 that he would keep the pre-existing conditions clause. You shouldn't be surprised. Also, you can't just cancel something on day one without a replacement.

People on both sides need to understand campaign rhetoric and promises are one world and real life is another. He still is 1000% better than HRC.

I know a lot of folks on here wanted Cruz, however his extreme Conservative/Right views don't play well to a large part of the US. If they did, he would have won the primary. BTW, HRC would have smoked Cruz in the general election. No way in hell Cruz would have won those Rustbelt states...
[/quote]

Ahhh. So, obviously the don is continuing his break contracts and stiff your business partners with your full approval. Straight from his "contract" with America:

Repeal and Replace
Obamacare Act
Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

And, Cruz won Wisconsin and Iowa in the primary. And he would have slaughtered Hillary in the debates. But you're right, the 40% of GOP voters who went batchit crazy over his border wall/deport them all lie were in fact impossible to overcome in the primary.

Make no mistake though, trump is nowhere near 1000% better than Hillary. He's a smidgen better. And it will be fun pointing out the similarities over the next 4 years.

My worst dog is 1000% better than HRC.

Exactly. And trump is much worse than your worse dog. As is Hillary.

Our nation doesn't benefit from people giving ANY POTUS elect a pass on what they promised (or for that matter believing ridiculous promises because they WANT to).

IMO trump apologists are as bad as liberal Clintonbots.

In the end, something is better than nothing.

Trump, love him or hate him, has always been a social moderate, but a strict conservative had very little chance of winning the general election. For that matter, the strictly conservative candidates didn't even win the Republican primary. In our favor are two facts:

Trump family members are gun owners and trophy hunters.
Trump publicly accepted major NRA support.

The country didn't elect a conservative, it elected a populist Republican. It's important to understand the difference. That said, what we have is vastly better than what we'd have had with HRC.

The glass is half full, not half empty. Smile, eat a pop-tart, be grateful for what we didn't lose.

Well said. I'll take it. I'm not a Trump train junkie but I'm happy.

He's on record as being a Rockefeller Republican... If you need a further explanation Google the term.

Half full or half empty, either way it's almost time for a refill. I like pop tarts, and only time will tell, but I have this nagging feeling that while we may not have lost, we didn't really win either...

For those who believe his "promises" on guns conservation and hunting:

How do you like his track record on other promises? Not even one week in and he's 180'd on two. Most recently his solemn promise in the last debate that he would "instruct my attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary".

His quote on 60 min last night when asked if he'd appoint a special prosecutor: "oh I don't know, I don't want to hurt them, they're good people and I don't want to hurt them".

So, do you believe he will honor his promises to protect gun rights? And if so, what do you base that belief on?

As with any president elect talk is cheap. So is fire and brimstone until he has actually done something.

His Supreme Court nominations will mean more then what he has said in the past. If I'm not mistaken he has already released a list.

So let's actually agrue something that can actually effect guns rights like SC nominations

Why not discuss and seek a solution rather than argue trying to prove individual beliefs and end up going home mad.

Let's do. Why do you believe he'll stick to his list when he's been walking back virtually every major promise he made?

I will agree with you that if he sticks with his commitment on that list we're going to get a better scotus. However, I have paid very close attention to his commitmens to his business partners, creditors and now to his political supporters. In each case he has abandoned his commitments.

Why do you believe he will break his pattern and remain true to that one?

I would submit that analyzing the fidelity to trumps commitments isn't "trying to prove individual beliefs". And in fact understanding reality SHOULD lead to solutions.

Wouldn't it solve some problems if voters scrutinized a candidates past performance on commitments instead of believing what sounded good but was blue sky??

What pattern? He is the President "elect". This is a 2017 discussion not a 2016. Your fire and brimstone will have to wait.

4 bankruptcies and a bogus university are already in the books. He's already reneged on 3 of his major promises after less than a week of being POTUS elect. He's not waiting to be POTUS to back off so why should we wait to hold him accountable?

His lack of fulfilling commitment is in fact his most consistent trait.

Again he is President "elect"... he has zero ability to implement anything right now. When he does in 2017 then this conversation may or may not have validity.

Until then you might as well just start calling him a socialist

So, what he's saying has no validity? And that's a good thing?

And so far he hasn't openly supported any blatantly socialist principles. When/if he does I'll be true to form and not "call" him a socialist. I'll just point out the fact he's supporting socialist principles. I find it much more effective to allow the person to see for themselves.

Exactly nothing has validity until he has the power to do something. He will be very very tame and very very PC until he takes the oath of office. He won but he isn't in office yet

Interesting take. I disagree but it is interesting.

Again, his MO includes healthy doses of not fulfilling his commitments. If he's smart and wants a second term then he'll follow the norm and go hard early. Which you are suggesting I think. But the going soft in the meantime just doesn't make any sense IMO.

It does...going his normal route would fuel the protests and fire. He won the electoral but not the popular. He will tread slowly

When a CEO is named he doesn't make changes to the organization before he gets his first paycheck infact not even first 5 -6 months. His agenda is slow at first...then he slowing cleans up messes.

He has a list of things he needs to be doing, aka vetting SC nominations and working the enter circles of congress to ensure congress approval.

I won't even mention cabinet members and appointees

exactly why I voted Trump, 100% agree on government land.

Comparing a CEO to POTUS is apples and aardvarks. CEOs aren't voted in with a guaranteed 4 year brick wall if your charges aren't pleased with your performance.

That's why there is so much emphasis on "the first 100 days". You gotta get all the blood letting done early so your support will heal over the next 4 years to give you a chance at the final 4 years.

Very nice! I really loved what Jr. said and President-elect Trump had good points except for:
So dodging But I think he means that he won't screw up public hunting lands? lol

News flash there is already mineral and timber production on public lands. Wilderness no, public lands yes