Trump's 7 point Drain the Swamp Plan & 100 Day Agenda

[Moiraine]

The people's president.

[RedDenver]

Why are the ethics rules open to Executive Order? Surely we can pass actual laws to prevent this.

[zoogs]

Something about draining the swamp.

 

The funny thing is, those who chanted that refrain were never interested in holding him accountable. They don't actually care about "draining the swamp" and never did. Like every other catchphrase, its true meaning was always "Hail Trump!"

[Danny Bateman]

Drain the swamp = Stick it to liberals

 

Looking back, that's all some of these folks ever cared about.

[knapplc]

It's all part of the outrage they sell. Conservatives have been in a state of perpetual anger for the better part of the last 20 years - basically since Clinton. You can tie it to the advent of Fox News and the rise of conservative radio like Rush Limbaugh before that. For a long time it was a fringe part of the movement, but today it's the mainstream idea. They're angry. They're not sure why, or about what, but they're really mad. They need a focus for that anger, so the media they consume proffers up "liberals" or Muslims or the people who would be affected by Trump's wall.

 

Kicker is, most of these angry people don't know a true liberal, don't know a Muslim, barely know or interact with Hispanics. But by gosh, they're mad at them. All of them.

[TGHusker]

 

Kicker is, most of these angry people don't know a true liberal, don't know a Muslim, barely know or interact with Hispanics. But by gosh, they're mad at them. All of them.

I'm not an angry conservative and now a days I'm more frustrated about the repub party than the Dems. I don't expect change from the dems, but I expected more from the repubs after years of being 'back benchers'. It frustrates me to no end, to see how they mis-handled the ACA replacement. They should have had a more efficient, lower cost system available day one. I think they truly expected to remain back benchers under Hillary's term and use the ACA as a continued fund raising issue. Shows me they were all blow and no go.

 

However, in regards to the post above, I do know and am friends with all of the people or classes of people Knapp lists above. No excuse for the angry conservative knapp is referring too, but no need to paint with a broad brush either. I think there are also a lot of angry liberals too - it is called polarization and it is unfortunate our country has gotten that way. We have few 'statesmen'. I think if the repubs had nominated & go elected a Kasich/Rubio ticket we might see more cooperation. I wished those guys had gotten together earlier in the process and said we are running as a team (I know what a dreamer I am). If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd have Christmas all year long.

[knapplc]

 

Kicker is, most of these angry people don't know a true liberal, don't know a Muslim, barely know or interact with Hispanics. But by gosh, they're mad at them. All of them.

However, in regards to the post above, I do know and am friends with all of the people or classes of people Knapp lists above.

 

I know 100 people like this. Sorry, but it's not only not a "broad brush," it's painfully accurate.

[knapplc]

[zoogs]

Here's a take on Paul Ryan from Mediate that is somewhat related to the above agenda: http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-corporate-media-morphed-paul-ryan-from-radical-to-reasonable/

 

Ryan talks a good game. But I agree with the dangerousness of the common portrayal of him as wonkish and credible. He may be a smart man, he may look like the All-American Politician, but that doesn't change the fact that his political life has been devoted to the upward redistribution of wealth. Like a reverse Robin Hood.

 

The author of this piece is from the quite leftist Young Turks, so of course they'd be this opposed to him. Still, I think their views on economic policy are at least in this respect not so far from mine. When it comes to wealth redistribution, there need to be compelling reasons.

 

Establishing a baseline so that people have access to opportunity is a good reason to me. On the other hand, I believe the evidence to date has pointed to increased gains at the top being used largely to consolidate wealth and power. "Trickle down" had a funny way of stagnating income for almost everybody and making the explosive gains at the top invisible to the rest of the country.

[Danny Bateman]

Drainin' that swamp.

 

 

I believe this is what the campaign iteration of Trump referred to as "the politics of personal enrichment."

[zoogs]

Can't wait to hear from all the people outraged about the prospect of "pay to play."

 

I mean, or just admit you never gave a rip about it all anyway.

[Danny Bateman]

[knapplc]

Remember when Trump (and Sean Spicer) ripped Obama for golfing 100 times in his first four years in office? They're trying to cover up Trump's hypocrisy over on state media...

 

[zoogs]

^A good reminder that the AHCA defeat is a bump in the road. Trump is still Trump and these are still troubling times. And for whom is the AHCA defeat a loss? Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus, certainly. The Freedom Caucus? They were part of the opposition. The Bannon Wing of the White House? They stand to gain from this shift of priorities.

[BigRedBuster]

Loss for Ryan and Preibus.

 

Who it SHOULD be a loss for is Trump and President Bannon. They are the ones who campaigned for President to specifically repeal and replace the ACA. Now, they have what could be a small blip in the road and they are giving up.

 

It's a loss for the Freedom Caucus if they don't come up with another/better solution. The opposed a bad bill. That's a good thing. Now, it's their job to help replace it with a good bill.