290 SHARES Share Tweet

US presidential candidates are noted over the years by countless occasions when they acted contrary to the statements made. By far, however, Donald Trump, the Republican Party candidate in presidential elections that will take place in November, shocked many comebacks by the claims in this regard.

For decades, American politicians have made promises only to violate them later. During election campaigns, repositioning on issues critical to society proved to be detrimental to candidates. For example, in 2004, Kerry’s oscillations on the war in Iraq have attracted numerous negative campaigns.

The same inconsistency in the level of discourse has had Barack Obama, regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.

While in August 2008, Obama declared that marriage, from his perspective as a Christian, is the union between a man and a woman after taking the second term in the White House, it was positioned completely different in this case.

“People of the same sex should be able to marry,” said Obama in October 2014.

Presidential elections, this year seem to be preceded by the same habits, from candidates. Democratic camp, Hillary Clinton has been criticized for its positioning against Trans-Pacific Partnership, after previously had called criterion gold trade agreements.

By far, however, her White House rival, Donald Trump, shock this chapter. In March 2012, Trump said about Hillary Clinton that she is “an extraordinary woman” and was “doing a good job.” However, four years later, in June 2016 Trump described her in totally different terms: “She did not do anything wrong. She did not do anything good.”

In October 1999, Trump said that he trusted in the power of “decision”. Asked, on March 30 this year in a television program if he believes that those who have abortions should be punished by law, he gave the following answer: “There must be a form of punishment”.

The examples do not stop here. In February 2011, Trump declared that the US should intervene to stop Abu Minyar al-Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya, an action that would otherwise be “easy and quick”. Four years after, Trump is positioned at the opposite pole: “Libya? Look what we did there. It’s a disaster.”

On December 8, 2015, Trump asserted in a press statement that Muslims should be totally denied access to the US. Just a week away, his speech looked different: “It would be a temporary thing.”

Moreover, in May 2014 Trump promised that if he will run for the US presidency, will publish its wealth statement to show how high the amount of taxes paid to the state. Instead, in May 2016, Trump declared, in a telephone intervention at a television station that ordinary people perceive very little of such payments, adding: “There have been many presidents who have not published”.

The last “touch-up” to the level of discourse operated during the official visit made in Mexico. While on August 31, located in Phoenix, capital of Arizona, Trump declared that “Mexico will pay for building the wall”, later the same day, he was in Mexico City, in a joint press conference held with the President of Mexico, Pena Nieto, Trump said that the relationship between the US and Mexico is “sincere and profound”, adding: “we have not discussed raising costs on the wall. We will have to discuss that. They’re wonderful people.”

Trump’s response to the criticism received? That in the business world, flexibility and the ability to negotiate is critical.