Eliza taking part in the Womens march - Boston

[white avenger]

After what happened in Washington...... stay safe Eliza!

I doubt she'll be in any dangerous situation at the march.

Turned into a bit of a riot....Broken Paving slabs hurled at Police, pepper spray.

Sounds like fun times! We had a march in Amsterdam too.

They had them all over the world....Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand. All over Europe.

I haven't looked into it in much detail but I like the idea of people being out on the streets, even if it's just to show this isn't being accepted as the new normal.

Normally I do take the line that people should accept the vote. This is a little different though for the reasons already highlighted.

This whole performance (the rioters and militant protesters, not the posts here) is absolutely disgusting and makes me ashamed to be an American for the first time in 69 years. Whether or not these people approve of Donald Trump as a man, the fact remains that, by the rules of the election, he won. He carried more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, and that makes him President of the United States. Period. End of story.

Will he be a good President, or a disaster? That remains to be seen, but the inauguration of our Chief Executive is supposed to be a Peaceful celebration of the thing that makes the United States rare, if not totally unique, in the world, and that is that we are capable of changing leaders on a regular basis without military coups or armed violence. All of this rioting, destruction of property, and actual physical attacks does nothing but show the world how weak we have become as a nation. Donald Trump is our President, not our Dictator, and, despite what a lot of misinformed people have been led to believe, his powers are no more absolute than any other President. His actions can be overruled by Congress, his Executive Orders can be overruled by the Supreme Court, and he can't push that infamous button, launching the nukes, without a damn good reason. He can't override the Constitution or bypass Congress, and even though he is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, he can't declare martial law without Congressional approval.

Donald Trump is a man, pure and simple, whose friends, the people who actually know him, say is a good, honorable man who sincerely cares about the state of our country and honestly believes that he can help. Whether he, personally, or with the help of advisers, managed to do it, he is a very wealthy, successful businessman, and he can bring that expertise, and those advisers, into Washington ans assess what the career politicians have done to this country, and, hopefully, find ways to improve our economy and strength as a nation.

He may be an even worse President than Obama, or he may be the greatest thing that ever happened to this country, but at least we should give the guy a chance before rioting. Peaceful protest is guaranteed by our Constitution, and I may be one of the loudest protesters in the crowd when the time comes, but, as of yet, he hasn't had a chance to do anything as President worth protesting about.

Would there have been these marches had Hillary Clinton won? Hillary Clinton who supported and allied with Saudi Wahhabism that flings gays off rooftops, enlists female children into marriage, chops off limbs, beheads (practically whoever they want), and stones to death innocent children and mothers?

The hypocrisy is blaring

This is the worst part of the whole thing. The very people who were so enraged by Trump's statement that he would only abide by the election results if he, personally, was satisfied of its validity are the ones now doing all the wailing and moaning over the simple fact that they underestimated Trump and what he could accomplish in getting voters out to support him. The people who said that there was absolutely no way that the election results could be influenced by outside forces are the ones now crying "FOUL!!!" The man who got his skull fractured while demonstrating for fair treatment and peaceful coexistence, who claims to believe that all men and women are equal and entitled to fair judgement under the law is now calling Trump's Presidency "invalid."

The only time other duly elected President who has raised anything like this much controversy was Abraham Lincoln, and that led to the darkest, most bloody and tragic four years in American history. I, for one, pray that we aren't seeing the beginnings of that once again.

At least Trump is obviously bad, unlike those charlatans.

Or, at least, an obviously biased news media is portraying him to be that way. I find it strange that so many people who actually know and associate with President Trump disagree.

I doubt he has enough intelligence to realize they are against him

How can you say that a man who controls a multibilloin dollar business is lacking in intelligence? Either he is smart enough to do the job. or he's smart enough to hire the people who are. Either way, if he can do that with his business interests, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to do the same thing with the United States.

Okay, now I've said my piece, and you can all feel free to tear it apart to your heart's desire. In the words of the immortal Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear..."

 

[Bluebird]

biased news media

I'm not influenced by bias. People who let an agenda get in the way of facts are untrustworthy.

Trump is a pathetic little man. Trust me, he was a giant loser here in Scotland long long before he became your president.

America deserves better...

 

[The Bronze]

I do admire your optimism @white avenger! Since Trump's office has already come up with the term "alternative facts" as a description for outright lies I think it's going to be a very long 4 years for everyone. However I'm always happy to give credit where it's due and I've just spotted that Trump is putting the TPP on the bonfire where it belongs, so thumbs up for that.

 

[Mr Trick]

This whole performance (the rioters and militant protesters, not the posts here) is absolutely disgusting and makes me ashamed to be an American for the first time in 69 years. Whether or not these people approve of Donald Trump as a man, the fact remains that, by the rules of the election, he won. He carried more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, and that makes him President of the United States. Period. End of story.

Will he be a good President, or a disaster? That remains to be seen, but the inauguration of our Chief Executive is supposed to be a Peaceful celebration of the thing that makes the United States rare, if not totally unique, in the world, and that is that we are capable of changing leaders on a regular basis without military coups or armed violence. All of this rioting, destruction of property, and actual physical attacks does nothing but show the world how weak we have become as a nation. Donald Trump is our President, not our Dictator, and, despite what a lot of misinformed people have been led to believe, his powers are no more absolute than any other President. His actions can be overruled by Congress, his Executive Orders can be overruled by the Supreme Court, and he can't push that infamous button, launching the nukes, without a damn good reason. He can't override the Constitution or bypass Congress, and even though he is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, he can't declare martial law without Congressional approval.

Donald Trump is a man, pure and simple, whose friends, the people who actually know him, say is a good, honorable man who sincerely cares about the state of our country and honestly believes that he can help. Whether he, personally, or with the help of advisers, managed to do it, he is a very wealthy, successful businessman, and he can bring that expertise, and those advisers, into Washington ans assess what the career politicians have done to this country, and, hopefully, find ways to improve our economy and strength as a nation.

He may be an even worse President than Obama, or he may be the greatest thing that ever happened to this country, but at least we should give the guy a chance before rioting. Peaceful protest is guaranteed by our Constitution, and I may be one of the loudest protesters in the crowd when the time comes, but, as of yet, he hasn't had a chance to do anything as President worth protesting about.





This is the worst part of the whole thing. The very people who were so enraged by Trump's statement that he would only abide by the election results if he, personally, was satisfied of its validity are the ones now doing all the wailing and moaning over the simple fact that they underestimated Trump and what he could accomplish in getting voters out to support him. The people who said that there was absolutely no way that the election results could be influenced by outside forces are the ones now crying "FOUL!!!" The man who got his skull fractured while demonstrating for fair treatment and peaceful coexistence, who claims to believe that all men and women are equal and entitled to fair judgement under the law is now calling Trump's Presidency "invalid."

The only time other duly elected President who has raised anything like this much controversy was Abraham Lincoln, and that led to the darkest, most bloody and tragic four years in American history. I, for one, pray that we aren't seeing the beginnings of that once again.



Or, at least, an obviously biased news media is portraying him to be that way. I find it strange that so many people who actually know and associate with President Trump disagree.



How can you say that a man who controls a multibilloin dollar business is lacking in intelligence? Either he is smart enough to do the job. or he's smart enough to hire the people who are. Either way, if he can do that with his business interests, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to do the same thing with the United States.

Okay, now I've said my piece, and you can all feel free to tear it apart to your heart's desire. In the words of the immortal Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear..."

Yes and just like Trump is free and entitled to take on his role as President of the USA, those protesters are free to express their views and to rebel against Trump as President. That's basic freedom of speech. To be fair if this is the first time in 69 years that you are ashamed of your country you need to look into the history of America a bit more. Some of the things that Trump said in the run up to being elected and has done in the past is much worse than the people protesting at the weekend.

My guess is that most of the people who protested were peaceful. Problem is that it only takes a few getting out of hand for that sort of thing to happen. I think those idiots have let the rest down. If you twist what you said though, then without Trump as President chances are it wouldn't have happened. Of course I'm not condoning their actions. But this is the first big issue with Trump as President. He has already spread hate and divided people in a way that Clinton never would. No he probably doesn't have anymore power than any other President except unlike like BO he does have a house who are share his parties view point.

I agree with that. It was a protest vote in many cases that got Trump into the White House. What that says to me is that its not that his voters wanted him more than they didn't want Clinton. And lets not forget when it was all said and done Clinton actually got more votes, and was the popular choice. Putting aside what I think about Trump, having someone in the White House just because his name isn't Clinton is far from ideal😉

He probably is intelligent, but there's lots of intelligent people in the world, doesn't mean they should all run for President. Boris Johnson is a smart guy and yet he is clearly unqualified for the position he currently has😀 You have to remember that Trump was born into money, and has been shown to be a crupt business man a number of times. Nowadays its easier than ever to be celebrity and to rip people off, and make money. Even if he was the best business man ever that still does not qualify him to be leader of the free world. Oh and I think Obama did a good job overall as President to answer one of your other comments. You have to remember that he had his hands tied behind his backs a lot of his time.

@GwenRaiden Because Clinton would have not discriminated against someone because of their gender or their place of birth etc... We need to stop pretending that these things don't matter.

@Anyanka Bunny Killer First of all I am not brain washed by the media. I live in a country where most of the media is right wing. I voted to leave the EU and I don't regret it one bit, and yet I read a left thinking newspaper. And the problem with what you said is that Trump actually benefited from the media. It was him using them more than the other way around. It was Clinton who suffered at the hands of a sexist media.

 

[GwenRaiden]

Because Clinton would have not discriminated against someone because of their gender or their place of birth etc...

I don't know. I mean, she defended a rapist in court, who raped a 12 year old girl (and apparently thinks it's a good laugh). And like I said, Clinton is very good friends with the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood, including Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who promotes female genital mutilation. And then there's her "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" comments regarding young black males. She's no angel either.

 

[Mr Trick]

I don't know. I mean, she defended a rapist in court, who raped a 12 year old girl (and apparently thinks it's a good laugh). And like I said, Clinton is very good friends with the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood, including Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who promotes female genital mutilation. And then there's her "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" comments regarding young black males. She's no angel.

Maybe, maybe not, those things haven't really been proven have they? In all fairness to her on defending the rapist. Has it been proven that he committed the crime he was accused of? There's a certain school of thought that says she was just doing her job. She was caught on camera laughing. Well she could've been laughing about anything.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

This whole performance (the rioters and militant protesters, not the posts here) is absolutely disgusting and makes me ashamed to be an American for the first time in 69 years. Whether or not these people approve of Donald Trump as a man, the fact remains that, by the rules of the election, he won. He carried more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, and that makes him President of the United States. Period. End of story.

But that happens all of the time. Let's not forget all of the rioters and protesters when O'Bama was elected first term.

If that did not make you ashamed to be an American then, then I don't see why a woman's march would.
 
@GwenRaiden No, this is racist, and criminal:
Obama election spurs race threats, crimes

 

[brinkster130]

@white avenger

Seriously, Trump isn't the first president to have protests happen at his inauguration and I highly doubt he'll be the last; this notion that its some only happy and peaceful event is silly. Inauguration protests have pretty much become the norm on January 20th. Mr. Pole has posted pictures that many conservatives seem to have forgotten about from Obama's; and George Bush certainly got a lot of hate (and eggs) thrown his way during both his inaugurations. Historically, you can trace back inauguration protests to 1829 when John Quincy Adams refused to attend Andrew Jackson's inauguration. In 1913 there was a large women's protest in DC before Wilson took office that turned violent; Nixon had a good bit of anti-war protesters flock to the capitol......I think we can agree its a shame to see protests turn violent, but Trump sure as hell isn't the first president to invoke that reaction and I'd be surprised if he's the last. I sincerely hope that a couple hundred Trump protesters aren't the only part of American history that invoke a sense of shame in you.

People do have to accept the fact that Trump has completed the legal process needed to serve as the President, however, people do not have to accept his policies. People are entitled to condemn him and to speak out against him, because we are a democracy and thats how it works. As Americans we have a constitutional right to criticize our government. Trump may not have done anything that worries or concerns you specifically, but its pretty clear there are millions who feel he has done and will continue to do things that worry and concern them.


As far as the Womens March goes, so far it's being reported that no arrests were made.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

As far as the Womens March goes, so far it's being reported that no arrests were made.

I believe that is incorrect; from what I heard, worldwide there were three arrests.

 

[Anyanka Bunny Slayer]

@Anyanka Bunny Killer First of all I am not brain washed by the media. I live in a country where most of the media is right wing. I voted to leave the EU and I don't regret it one bit, and yet I read a left thinking newspaper. And the problem with what you said is that Trump actually benefited from the media. It was him using them more than the other way around. It was Clinton who suffered at the hands of a sexist media.

There's absolutely no problem with what I said, just so we're clear. And if Trump benefited from the media, bully for him. He was attacked, slandered, accused of sexual harassment by fame-seeking skanks...pretty much every dirty trick in the book was used by the media to discredit him, yet he won anyway. Which is the ultimate irony, and proves that the best candidate won, despite the left-wing campaign against him.

On the other hand, Clinton lost because it became WIDELY know than she is a crook, a murderer, a liar, a redneck racist, and basically a disgusting excuse for a human being. If she suffered at all, GOOD! That would be karma at work. The woman is a festering, cancerous tumor masquerading as a good person. Hopefully, she will now slink back into the foul swamp she emerged from.

 

[white avenger]

America deserves better...

I agree. Trump is not my idea of the perfect President. He's just far, far better, in my opinion, than the alternative. I hate having to be forced to make the better of two bad choices, but as long as I am, I will cast my vote, then abide by the final decision.

Yes and just like Trump is free and entitled to take on his role as President of the USA, those protesters are free to express their views and to rebel against Trump as President.

Free and entitled to protest, yes. That's our Constitutional right. It is not, however, our right to destroy private property and endanger or injure others simply because they don't share our views. That's the difference between a protest and a riot.

To be fair if this is the first time in 69 years that you are ashamed of your country you need to look into the history of America a bit more

There's a big difference between not being proud of something and actually being ashamed of it.

People do have to accept the fact that Trump has completed the legal process needed to serve as the President, however, people do not have to accept his policies.

People do, however, have to accept the fact that, for the next 4 years, he will be the one making those policies. I haven't agreed with a lot of Government policies, under either Republican and Democrat Presidents, but that never gave me the right to ignore them, destroy private property or endanger or injure other people. We fought a war about that in 186o.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

This isn't related to the current topic, but it is related to the thread and I did not want to start another one. From Jezebel

'Stop Looking to the Left or Right': After the March, 500 Women Learned How to Run for Office

Photo by Ellie Shechet.

WASHINGTON, DC—Bright and quite early in the morning after the D.C. Women’s March, 500 women considering seeking political office attended a “Getting Ready to Run” training at the Grand Hyatt Washington hosted by Emily’s List, by far the largest training event in the pro-choice PAC’s 31-year history.

“I flew in [for the women’s march] and then saw this on social media and thought, well, if the march is day one, then this is day two,” said Katy Pelissier, 28, while attendees mingled over breakfast. Pelissier, who works at an environmental nonprofit in Portland, Oregon, that helps school districts buy local food, has always been frustrated by policy barriers. But, she said, “when Trump was elected, I started feeling like the future I want is not inevitable, I have to work for it.”

“I’m tired of watching what other people do on behalf of my community,” said Khadijah Brydson, a beaming 24-year-old DC-based IT consultant who’s originally from Miami. “I want to be in a position where I can hear people’s concerns and be able to implement policy.”

Laura Zax, 29, was more cautiously optimistic. “I have serious doubts about whether I would be able to have the energy to withstand so much negativity—I’m not working against anything right now, and I think it has the potential to be really exhausting,” she said. “But I think it also has the potential to be really energizing.”

Emily’s List was founded to elect pro-choice Democratic women to political office at the local and national level, and has helped carry 23 women into the U.S. Senate, including recently-elected Senators Kamala Harris (California), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois), and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada). (Jezebel recently partnered with Emily’s List on an inauguration panel.) Sunday’s training, which included breakout sessions, Q&As, and an address from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, teased out misconceptions about barriers to office—being single, being a mom, not having a world-class education—and emphasized local elections. The slogan “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu!” was repeated a number of times.

“The state and local offices, ladies, are going to be ground zero for this nonsense,” said Muthoni Wambu Kraal, the group’s senior director of state engagement and development, noting the GOP’s control of a record number of state legislative chambers. Kraal, a powerhouse speaker, worked to corral the energy of the previous day’s march.

“You are not crazy for thinking that you should run for office after this election that you just witnessed,” she said, to loud cheers. “We know that women run for office because they’re angry or they want to fix something—watch out for the woman for whom it’s both.

“It’s gotta be you,” Kraal added. “Sorry, stop looking to the left or the right.”

There was a driving sense in the room that we’re just going to keep pushing on, even in the face of the disturbing and persistent impression that it’s not just progressive values that are under attack, but American democracy itself—along with the norms and strictures that have traditionally policed its institutions. At one point, a list of “Key Must Haves” for potential candidates included a number of characteristics (“likes people,” “integrity,” “skin that can thicken”) that don’t seem to have mattered in the case of our current president. The baseline fact that a prospective public servant ought to exhibit such qualities, however, is more glaringly prominent than ever.

“We have some reporters here today,” Kraal announced at one point, as the audience turned to look at the press section. “Isn’t it nice to be greeted and respected?” she asked us. The room erupted into applause.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I see that Trump has already stopped trade agreements to get better one for America. He will have new people try to get new agreements to benefit America, we'll see what happens there. But he will never get full employment in America, tens of thousands lost their jobs with the event of the computer and even more lost their jobs when robots were used. But population growth continued so more people were after less jobs. Then there is the fact that the perfect level of unemployment is about 1 to 1 and a quarter per cent (?) so Trump's promise of a job for everyone was a lie.
With regard to all the other promises he made being fulfilled, he has 4 years to prove himself right. Personally I doubt he can and that he will fail so well the American people will turn on him, and should that happen how many people will stop wanting his name on their hotels?

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I voted to leave the EU and I don't regret it one bit

Ditto.

I think it's very telling that the EU is now throwing a tantrum and stamping its foot because it didn't get it's own way, and is also trying to use bully-boy tactics to punish the UK for standing up for itself.

 

[white avenger]

He will have new people try to get new agreements to benefit America, we'll see what happens there

Exactly. We shouldn't condemn the man before he even gets a chance to show what he can do, and we certainly shouldn't hope that he fails, because we will fail right along with him.

But he will never get full employment in America

Trump's promise of a job for everyone was a lie.

Not as much a lie as a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I think that what he meant was that there will be the opportunity to work for everyone actually willing and able to work. There could never be 100% employment in this country or anywhere else

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Exactly. We shouldn't condemn the man before he even gets a chance to show what he can do, and we certainly shouldn't hope that he fails, because we will fail right along with him.

There are numerous things you can condemn him on and shouldn't give him a chance, and things you should hope he fails on, because if he doesn't fail to enact those things we certainly will fail. And he's not just affecting the US with his policy but the world. It's unsure how many women's deaths he will be responsible for. And no, that's not hyperbole.

 

[The Bronze]

Ditto.

I think it's very telling that the EU is now throwing a tantrum and stamping its foot because it didn't get it's own way, and is also trying to use bully-boy tactics to punish the UK for standing up for itself.

How is it doing that?

 

[Bluebird]

Ditto.

I think it's very telling that the EU is now throwing a tantrum and stamping its foot because it didn't get it's own way, and is also trying to use bully-boy tactics to punish the UK for standing up for itself.

In your quote - exchange UK for Scotland and the EU for the UK and that's exactly how I feel about the UK.

And the hilarious irony of it all? This UK government played on people's fears of Scotland NOT being part of the EU if they left the UK, and promised they'd be a better and stronger nation together in the UK in the EU. Words have meaning. But maybe not the same meaning the UK government applies to them. I don't want a foreign (both politically AND culturally) entity (UK government) running my country either.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

How is it doing that?

By trying to make Brexit as difficult as possible in order to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU. The scaremongering that went on in the anti-Brexit campaign was ridiculous (that's not to say the pro-Brexit campaign didn't exaggerate things) but the anti-Brexit campaign was basically "If you vote Brexit, everything is going to be doom and gloom from that point forward". Britain should be able to decide its own laws and policies, not be dictated to from Brussels. Just my opinion but Brussels' attitude towards member countries seems to be "Do as we say or get out". Towards Britain it seems to be "Oh so you voted to leave? Well we're going to make an example out of you and make it as difficult as possible because we don't want other countries following your lead".

In your quote - exchange UK for Scotland and the EU for the UK and that's exactly how I feel about the UK.

And the hilarious irony of it all? This UK government played on people's fears of Scotland NOT being part of the EU if they left the UK, and promised they'd be a better and stronger nation together in the UK in the EU. Words have meaning. But maybe not the same meaning the UK government applies to them. I don't want a foreign (both politically AND culturally) entity (UK government) running my country either.

I never knew you were from Scotland?

Here's the thing though, I think Scotland needs to be very careful in regards to another independence referendum. I'm not saying that to be nasty or anything, but I think Scotland could end up worse off if it blindly follows Nicola Sturgeon in voting to leave the UK. She seems to think that voting to leave the UK will enable Scotland to stay in the EU. However, I think the EU will try and punish ALL of Britain, including Scotland, for voting Brexit and would therefore tell Scotland to sod off. Scotland would then be left on its own outside of BOTH the UK and the EU, and would have no choice but to renegotiate its way back in. However, because Scotland would be in a weaker position than either the UK or the EU, renegotiating membership would result in Scotland having a weaker say in things than they do now. Kind of a "we'll let you back in but on OUR terms" kind of deal.

I'm not going to get into the can of worms that is known as a second referendum (either Brexit or Scottish Independence) because where do you draw the line? Sturgeon and Remainers want a second referendum because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time but then if they did get the results they wanted, should there then be a third referendum because the leavers and the people that want to stay in Scotland would want the answer that was originally decided. If Scotland had voted to go independent the first time, would Sturgeon be calling a second referendum? Should there be a second referendum if Scotland had voted to leave originally? Likewise if the Brexit result had gone in the opposite direction than what it did?

 

[Bluebird]

By trying to make Brexit as difficult as possible in order to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU. The scaremongering that went on in the anti-Brexit campaign was ridiculous (that's not to say the pro-Brexit campaign didn't exaggerate things) but the anti-Brexit campaign was basically "If you vote Brexit, everything is going to be doom and gloom from that point forward". Britain should be able to decide its own laws and policies, not be dictated to from Brussels. Just my opinion but Brussels' attitude towards member countries seems to be "Do as we say or get out". Towards Britain it seems to be "Oh so you voted to leave? Well we're going to make an example out of you and make it as difficult as possible because we don't want other countries following your lead".



I never knew you were from Scotland?

Here's the thing though, I think Scotland needs to be very careful in regards to another independence referendum. I'm not saying that to be nasty or anything, but I think Scotland could end up worse off if it blindly follows Nicola Sturgeon in voting to leave the UK. She seems to think that voting to leave the UK will enable Scotland to stay in the EU. However, I think the EU will try and punish ALL of Britain, including Scotland, for voting Brexit and would therefore tell Scotland to sod off. Scotland would then be left on its own outside of BOTH the UK and the EU, and would have no choice but to renegotiate its way back in. However, because Scotland would be in a weaker position than either the UK or the EU, renegotiating membership would result in Scotland having a weaker say in things than they do now.

I'm not going to get into the can of worms that is known as a second referendum (either Brexit or Scottish Independence) because where do you draw the line? Sturgeon and Remainers want a second referendum because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time but then if they did get the results they wanted, should there then be a third referendum because the leavers and the people that want to stay in Scotland and want the answer that was originally decided. If Scotland had voted to go independent the first time, would Sturgeon be calling a second referendum? Should there be a second referendum if Scotland had voted to leave originally? Likewise if the Brexit result had gone in the opposite direction than what it did?

I'm just explaining how I and half the population feels about the UK. Scotland doesn't have a lot of trust in the UK government, and even the no voters are feeling cheated by the empty promises.