I'm not anti-capitalist, but I am anti publicly traded companies as they exist today. Corporations should focus on their employees and their customers, not shareholders.
Are you sure? That seems like it is nearly the definition of anti-capitalist.
I was just citing an example of something that is a bad promise. Closing GitMo in the first year of someone's Presidency is also a promise that was made very clearly. It was not done. Did he have the authority to do so? I believe that he did. It was a military base and military prisoners and he was the guy in charge of the military. Could he have moved them to the US and kept them in jail? I have my doubts. So that is one where at the very least he was being naive (btw: most of us familiar with the subject knew it wouldn't happen). But when up for his second term, very few people seemed to care.
Just to be clear. I'm not suggesting people should never say they will do something that requires cooperation. Going back to the OP the point is that if I say I am going to do something, and fail to do it because people were actively working against it, that's still a failure. It is still a hit to credibility. If I didn't understand what was required to get it done or if I knew but didn't get it locked down before talking that's all on me.
"Read my lips, no new taxes" is a good one. It is something that wasn't 100% in his power but he could have vetoed the bill and claimed the high ground (even if it were to get overridden). But he signed the tax increase (to get something else he wanted) and therefore failed and was held to account.
We aren't talking about stuff like "I promise to hold a parade on the third Thursday after I'm in power" which is then cancelled because of an earthquake. They are promising things that they are BY LAW prohibited from doing unilaterally; things that require power not granted to them by the Constitution. If the President can issue a legal executive order and make it happen, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can order as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can do in terms of setting foreign policy, that is legit. Pardons and clemency are, of course, legit.
If someone running said "we are going to build something really big and stupid and which will not go very far towards accomplishing what we are trying to do" I would be skeptical because the President cannot allocate big chunks of budget for stuff like that. If the President said "don't worry about that, I'm going to make someone else pay for it" I would likewise be skeptical. If said person failed to build this thing I would give them 0 credit against their promise, even though they tried, because they should have known when they said it what would be required.
I'm guessing you're the type of pedant that never "promises" anything he can't deliver?
Fixed that for you. Sounds like you're the other guy.
CA is fine, the problem is the old actresses wanting to disguise their age because they're not being selected to audition. They were fine when they were young and attractive, and being on the receiving end of the system; but now they're not they've started complaining and using their wealth (gained from their youthful years) to change the system. Hahaha, touch titties!
Paging Dr. Freud...
Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan