US Presidential Contenders

[Spacy]

Not sure, to be honest.

His bring back jobs the media has focused on coal - which he did say, but his real promise was to bring back blue collar jobs that we lost to asia in order for asia to develop a middle class.  This mostly applies to China, I believe. 

Illegal mexicans I would change to just illegals.  Course, he could just change the laws to make them legal... which fills his promise.

Time frame to eradicate ISIS (and rebranding of ISIS into something else)?  I am sure he needs a few days at least. 

NAFTA I think is safe.  Been around 25 odd years.  The Pacific trade deal was dead no matter who won - as all the candidates said they didn't like it (though Clinton was in favor, then not, then in, then not again I think). 

Didn't he say something about getting the Panama Canal back?

Muslims - was it to completely remove them, or just temp stop to get stronger vetting in place?

Refugees - did he have something about them?

Laws to basically make it hard to be a lobbyist?

-----------------------------

Obama
-- He had some specific space ones that I don't recall.  I do know that they basically all fell apart within the first 3 months of his first term. 
-- Obamacare was just part of what he promised to reform.  Most got stuck in limbo due to partisan politics.  He did get that part though (affordable) but just how affordable is it, particularly with the rate increases going on now (before he leaves office)?

OUt of Iraq - success.   Just because we went back doesn't mean we got out.  Now, if we would have made them strong instead of leaving them with a crushed psyche, we might not have had to go back.

Close Gitmo - he changed the laws so that the torture stopped (thankfully).  Rest is in process, just going to take time. 

Wall Street - never going to happen. 

[Rusty Edge]

[Sleezebag] today sort of withdrew his threats about investigating/prosecuting/jailing Hillary, in the interest of national unity, and has backed away from restoring torture.

[Bearu]

[Sleezebag] today sort of withdrew his threats about investigating/prosecuting/jailing Hillary, in the interest of national unity, and has backed away from restoring torture.

While the writer may not currently support torture as the first method of control, the prospect of torture does remain a strong motivation for the conformity of the population with the demands of the ruling party.

[E_T]

I had seen on the news recently that he has gone soft on several of his pre-election stances, and it's not even January...  maybe all of the cabinet prospects are telling him to dial it back or not find anyone to fill the jobs...

[Buster's Uncle]

Texas Elector Art Sisneros to Resign Instead of Voting for Donald [Sleezebag]
U.S. News & World Report
Gabrielle Levy  1 hr ago


 
© (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald [Sleezebag].



A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald [Sleezebag], calling the Electoral College "corrupted from its original intent" and saying voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God."
Art Sisneros was considering in August the possibility of becoming a so-called faithless elector, meaning he would refuse to vote for [Sleezebag] if the GOP candidate won the Lone Star State and its 38 electoral votes in November.

In a Saturday blog post on his website, Sisneros said he had decided he was not comfortable defying his pledge to vote for his party's nominee, but neither could he cast his vote for [Sleezebag].

"Since I can't in good conscience vote for Donald [Sleezebag], and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an elector," Sisneros wrote. "This will allow the remaining body of electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec. 19 with someone that can vote for [Sleezebag]."

His decision followed a previous post in which he posed the question of whether it was "acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like [Sleezebag] for president," and concluded that he could not "in good conscience" do so.

"I do not see how Donald [Sleezebag] is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the presidency," he said in his Saturday post. "Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from Scripture otherwise. If [Sleezebag] is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I cannot and will not vote for Donald [Sleezebag] for president."

In the lengthy post, Sisneros explained his frustration with both progressives' and conservatives' approaches to the Electoral College and the failure to use the body in the way the founders intended, which Sisneros likened to parents acting "in the best interest of their children" even if in some cases their children desire otherwise.

"In most homes, kids do not have the right to eat Skittles for dinner. It is not in their best interest," he wrote.

"The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner," he said. "I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic."


Meanwhile, a separate movement is openly lobbying for enough electors to refuse to vote for [Sleezebag].

Calling themselves the Hamilton Electors – a nod to Alexander Hamilton’s explanation of the Electoral College’s job as to ensure “the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” – the group spurred by Democratic electors hopes to trigger the selection of another candidate through electors either changing their votes or abstaining from voting for [Sleezebag].

Electors are set to meet in their respective states across the country on Dec. 19 to formally cast their votes for president.
Copyright 2016 U.S. News & World Report

/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-[Sleezebag]/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Yitzi]

I had seen on the news recently that he has gone soft on several of his pre-election stances, and it's not even January...  maybe all of the cabinet prospects are telling him to dial it back or not find anyone to fill the jobs...

Either that, or those stances were an election ploy all along.

[E_T]

So, even though that predictive program pointed towards a Republican Whitehouse win, how much did the possible Russian Hacks have in widening that margin?

Did the hacks influance the primaries to where Hillary was the front runner and Nomminee?  Although the RNC claims that they did not get hacked, was [Sleezebag]'s Primary wins also influanced by this?

What other election races were influanced by the hacks?

Is [Sleezebag] going to try to influace the investigation?  Is he Putin's Butt Buddy??