Draining the Swamp

[_subgenius]

Please help me understand how appointing people with significant conflicts of interest to oversee regulatory functions ....(snip)...

This is an interesting point because your are, seemingly, assigning a value to the idea that a person who is qualified/experienced/involved in any particular "function" has an inherent conflict of interest with that same function. This seems to be an inescapable condition for appointees, but for you this condition is absent only when said appointee is either affiliated with your preferred party or with your preferred philosophy for how things are supposed to be.

Personally, I don't understand how your posts can expect unbias representation while also demanding bias representation.

[_Markk]

The "swamp" wasn't just the status quo.

In context with my OP it was and is. No more Bushes...no more Clinton's after 25 years or more. And if you read the OP... I believe the changes we are seeing are also attributed to a generational thing, with our voting youth...which in all reality kept Hillary out of the White House more than anything else, except for maybe her.

The swamp was a specific reference to Washington D.C. corruption. That's things like lobbyists writing legislation for industries that people in Congress then pass in exchange for campaign donations and cushy positions on corporate boards once out of office.

It was generally about making Washington Honest again...okay, which I concede is an oxymoron no matter who is in control... but what has it morphed into EA?

Trump being in office has rocked the status quo. The Washington elite do not know what to do with this guy, on both sides of the isle. It has boiled down to ridiculous arguments and accusations against him, along with the accusations deserved.

Over the years many in Washington pledged to "drain the swamp", but with no real bite...that is until now.

Trump has no more loyalty to the GOP than he does the Democrat. and what we are seeing is there in no real loyalty to him...the only folks "being" loyal are those that have to. And the by product of all this is what I called the draining of the swamp in my OP.

And say what you will about Trump...this may be a very good thing, we will see. He is showing the country, by example in may cases, how messed up the house and senate are, and how these folks are people like you and me, no smarter, many dumber...but just people with personal agendas and and greased pockets. Think about it...Pelosi was actually 3rd in line for President at one time...and you think Trump is a bad choice. Or Hillary as President after seeing her character in her loss?

And whether you like it or not...he has shown folks how messed up the press is. Fake news, on both sides is a very real thing...I see it here big time, lurking and reading what you guys link from self serving websites all looking for some smoking gun that never surfaces but sticks to itching ears, and then many comment on that which in the end is just BS after going full circle. News today and crow tomorrow.

You don't like the guy, I get that, he was certainly not on my short (or long) list of conservative choices...but he is our President, and most the crap that he is criticized for is just that, crap.

He has some very tough foreign policy dangers he has to deal with that he inherited, and I hope he makes the right choices, and so far he seems to be doing okay in that arena.

[_Brackite]

The Pelosi's and McCain's are more or less done.

I basically like McCain and his views that Congress should work together to become more bipartisan again.

I never really liked Pelosi, but there is a pretty good chance that she could become Speaker of the House again. The Democrats are likely going to take back the House during the November 2018 mid-term elections.

[_canpakes]

The "swamp" wasn't just the status quo.

In context with my OP it was and is. No more Bushes...no more Clinton's after 25 years or more. And if you read the OP...

Markk, for a moment, let's run with your alternate version of what 'draining the swamp' means to most folks. Given this, can you give me your thoughts on how replacement of the Bushites and Clintonites with a new extended network comprised of family, friends and financial supporters of the Trump clan - complete with business associates tied as closely as possible to industries that they are now tasked to regulate, and judges whose best attribute is arguably their loyalty to Trump as opposed to their experience - creates any better of a swamp?

I believe the changes we are seeing are also attributed to a generational thing, with our voting youth...which in all reality kept Hillary out of the White House more than anything else, except for maybe her.

Then this particular part of the equation had nothing to do with Trump, correct?

[_Kevin Graham]

In context with my OP it was and is

In my context?

Translation: in my private bubble of FOX News illusion.

This is where up is down, black is white, straight is gay, and Trump is never wrong.

With people like you I'm not sure exactly what he needs to do to earn your disapproval.

Perhaps eat a live baby on national television? Or maybe that's only if it isn't an anchor baby.

[_Markk]

In context with my OP it was and is

In my context?

Translation: in my private bubble of FOX News illusion.

This is where up is down, black is white, straight is gay, and Trump is never wrong.

With people like you I'm not sure exactly what he needs to do to earn your disapproval.

Perhaps eat a live baby on national television? Or maybe that's only if it isn't an anchor baby.

Kevin...one, I rarely watch Fox news, or any cable news anymore, in fact I watch ABC news more than anything most weekday Mornings, which is about as anti-Trump as it comes. I drive 4 or more hours each day, and I listen to KFI radio when I drive (after the Dan Patrick Show), which is hardly right, Bill Handel hates the man, John and Ken hate all politicians and are objective and bias to each situation and issue, and are switch hitters hating both Democrats and republicans.

Two, I disapprove of allot of things Trump does, he is an ass...but given our choices I do believe he is better than Hillary and Bernie.

But I can be objective enough to concede he is doing good things also, and per this conversation, maybe, just maybe the best thing he is doing is shaking up the status quo so we can maybe get a decent Commander and Chief.

My question to you, "is there anything at all you can admit he is doing a good job on?" When I read your posts you are willing to jump on any hint of negative news on the guy, proven of not.

In all reality, from what I see from both of you... emotionally you and Trump are really no different except for positions. If he posted here he would be more like you than anyone else, again emotionally and by persona. If anyone has a different view than you guys, you attack and call names, post messages without thinking, which both are the signature moves of a insecure person at best, and a narcissist at the worse.

Do me a favor, read some of you past posts, and then read some of Trump's tweets, and reflect on how similar you guys are.

Carry on.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin...one, I rarely watch Fox news, or any cable news anymore, in fact I watch ABC news more than anything most weekday Mornings, which is about as anti-Trump as it comes. I drive 4 or more hours each day, and I listen to KFI radio when I drive (after the Dan Patrick Show), which is hardly right, Bill Handel hates the man, John and Ken hate all politicians and are objective and bias to each situation and issue, and are switch hitters hating both Democrats and republicans.

Sure Markk, sure. You're the one guy who managed to find radio waves that broadcast strictly Leftist radio shows. Here in Georgia from 8am-9pm it is nothing but back to back Right wing shows followed by reruns of the same shows.

Two, I disapprove of allot of things Trump does, he is an ass...but given our choices I do believe he is better than Hillary and Bernie.

You're reinforcing the point that you're idiot. There is no rational basis to ever say such a thing.

But I can be objective enough to concede he is doing good things also

Calling yourself objective doesn't make you objective. There is nothing objective about saying the most corrupt person in political history is somehow getting rid of corruption. You cannot demonstrate how this is the case, all you can do is remind us how you're just happy he's not Hillary or Bernie.

, and per this conversation, maybe, just maybe the best thing he is doing is shaking up the status quo so we can maybe get a decent Commander and Chief.

Maybe? So you jump from "he doing good things" to "maybe" based on nothing more than your assumption that, so long as he's not Hillary, he must be doing something good? Your delusions run deep, but your ignorance and hatred of Hillary appears to be the source.

My question to you, "is there anything at all you can admit he is doing a good job on?" When I read your posts you are willing to jump on any hint of negative news on the guy, proven of not.

Sure, tell me what he's done besides play golf, tweet like a moron, insult our military, our veterans, our disabled, virtually all women in the country, etc. What has he done that's so awesome in your mind?

In all reality, from what I see from both of you... emotionally you and Trump are really no different except for positions. If he posted here he would be more like you than anyone else, again emotionally and by persona. If anyone has a different view than you guys, you attack and call names, post messages without thinking, which both are the signature moves of a insecure person at best, and a narcissist at the worse.

Cute, but I'm not the one making irrational rants, praising a con artist for getting rid of corruption based on nothing more than, "he's not Hillary."

We're still waiting for you to explain what Trump has done that's so great. Your OP is an epic fail of an attempt for all of the reasons EA mentioned.

[_Markk]

Markk, for a moment, let's run with your alternate version of what 'draining the swamp' means to most folks. Given this, can you give me your thoughts on how replacement of the ____ and Clintonites with a new extended network comprised of family, friends and financial supporters of the Trump clan - complete with business associates tied as closely as possible to industries that they are now tasked to regulate, and judges whose best attribute is arguably their loyalty to Trump as opposed to their experience - creates any better of a swamp?

At this point I don't see that...in fact I believe the GoP, FBI, and most of Washington would hang the guy out to dry if given a chance, and in all reality the moment he goes too far it will happen.

I get your point and there will always be a self serving mentality with all politicians and administrations, but what i see different here is Trump is rocking both sides of the Isle...and I believe this might be good for our country in the run.

Then this particular part of the equation had nothing to do with Trump, correct?

Yes, and I stated that in my OP in the first sentence.

"I am not sure how much can be attributed to Trump, and how much to young people seeing their parents politics as crap..."


I think most youths that pay attention and care... are disgruntled at their parents politics, and watching them come home from work and turn on cable news and watch ignorant pundent's bicker back and forth in total hypocrisy.

[_Markk]

I basically like McCain and his views that Congress should work together to become more bipartisan again.

I never really liked Pelosi, but there is a pretty good chance that she could become Speaker of the House again. The Democrats are likely going to take back the House during the November 2018 mid-term elections.

I like McCain also, but I think he is no longer effective and hate sTrumps so much he is putting that before good choices, but I could be wrong. I hope you are wrong about Pelosi. But she is good at raising Money from what I have read, so who knows.

[_EAllusion]

Trump is indebted to the GOP because they are the ones protecting him from a more robust investigative process and allowing him to use his office to personally benefit financially. They don't have to do either and Trump knows it. Trump has ceded all policy ground except immigration and Russia to Congressional Republicans. And his administrative appointments seem mostly to be a combination of his personal nepotism and Mike Pence's dream-team. This makes sense given that we know he had offered Kaisich control of both foreign and domestic policy in exchange for accepting a VP nod.

Trump is mostly a proxy for hard right GOP desires and on every substantial front his campaign rhetoric diverged with GOP positioning, his admin has broken its promises in favor of GOP positions. Again, the only notable exceptions are immigration and Russia.

In turn, the GOP leadership adores Trump and has been working rather diligently to bolster him specifically because he's signed almost whatever they want. They also desperately need him to be successful because the partisan coat-tail effects for the president are very large these days due to a collapse in the influence of local media. In other words, the public votes for or against local candidates based on their perception of the president. The Republican party has been on a donations bonanza lately from the ultra-wealthy donor class because they received a financial windfall from the recent tax cuts. The GOP and Trump are tied at the hip.

Almost every single statement you are making Markk is 180 degree the opposite of reality. It's a bit frustrating to see, but really, it's disturbing. That's the environment that explains why politicians can so easily get away with things.