Draining the Swamp begins...

[MrSquished]

Indeed, we should be holding people to their word. Sadly, we only do that when its the other side that says it. It's only a problem when the wrong side does it. When the right side does it, that turns into pragmatism.

I pointed this out in another thread, but when the Left tries to make a point that Trump is bad and this is a unique example, they lose the argument. Their goal is to show how Trump was the wrong choice, but at best this is an example that shows he is not better than the Left's options. The left needs to stop with the BS arguments, and trying to take Trump down by personal attacks. This should be used to show that Trump is equal to all the bad things, not worse. In trying to exaggerate things he does, they end up making people think he is better than he actually is. Trump has interests outside of the American people, but, by trying to make him seem like his interests are worse than others, you end up losing.

If the previous corruption has not been the end of the US, don't pretend it will be now. Focus on the fact that it hurts and makes is less well off. Until such time that we see something unique, don't call it unique.

Obama did indeed mostly fail on his promises to curb lobbyists. This is more about how the anti-establishment candidate that Trump acolytes were calling the saviour is just embracing the same system so far initially. He was supposed to be this anti-politician almost God like figure doing things totally different from the rest. That's the point.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama did indeed mostly fail on his promises to curb lobbyists. This is more about how the anti-establishment candidate that Trump acolytes were calling the saviour is just embracing the same system so far initially. He was supposed to be this anti-politician almost God like figure doing things totally different from the rest. That's the point.

The appointment of these guys was to be totally expected, although floating the CEO of Chase as Treasury Secretary is particularly brazen. The corruption threat from a Trump administration goes way, way farther than that though. This guy has a web of businesses that cover a huge swath of the US regulatory scheme and he seems totally uninterested in divesting himself or his family from it. The potential for corruption here is of Russian oligarchic proportions.

When asked about it before he said his kids would run the business and they just wouldn't talk about it. Yes, that's actually what he said his plan is.

 

[soundforbjt]

ADL is demanding Bannon be removed from Trump's staff.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...on-appointment.html?via=mobile&source=copyurl

 

[realibrad]

No, this is again an exercise in false equivalence. The level of conflict of interest present in a Trump administration is not only uniquely large, it is uniquely large by several orders of magnitude. If the left were to try and pretend this wasn't the case not only would they be in denial of reality, they would have lost the argument before it even started. We can't let ourselves be duped by the constant calls for false equivalence. It's the same thing that happened in the election where people tried to claim that both candidates were liars despite one being orders of magnitude worse.

There is no way a sane and rational person looking at the facts objectively can say that the conflict of interest present here is equal to or even remotely equal to anything that has preceded it in the history of the American presidency. If you believe you have an example that says otherwise, please let me know what it is.

Trump's administration? Not only has he not picked anyone officially yet, but he has not taken office. There is nothing yet. Logically, the lists we have seen are likely going to picked. If those people on the lists are picked, then there will be large conflicts. But, by saying that its already much worse is going to get people to tune you out.
Here is the best list I have found so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

Not only are there conflicts, but horrible choices as well. Joe Arpaio for homeland security is very worrying. Bolton from Bush is shitty. But, by you and others already saying this is the worst thing ever before it has even happened makes you look like extreme liberals and will be dismissed. I think you are right that there is a problem with his picks, but by going too hard too fast you are going to push people away. I am not making a false equivalence argument here. I correctly pointed out that the previous comments were a double standard, but that does not mean I think they are totally equal.

There is a building feeling that those who are adamant are extremists. I have been thinking of the best way to explain my thinking on this, and I think I found it over the weekend.

Look at SJWs and how people feel about them. There are real things to talk about, but those things get dismissed because those trying to spread the message do so in a way that turns most people off. It has gotten to the point where even bringing up some subjects will conjure up associations and get you dismissed. Its the same thing when anyone on the Right brings up terrorism to someone on the Left. You will immediately be mocked and dismissed without any thought or discussion. Right now, Trump is tapping into that feeling. Trump has real faults, that we both agree on. Where we disagree is how we discuss those faults. By going so deeply personal, you get dismissed as an extremist and your points will be ignored by that group. You have to be even more controlled to deal with them.

 

[MrSquished]

The appointment of these guys was to be totally expected, although floating the CEO of Chase as Treasury Secretary is particularly brazen. The corruption threat from a Trump administration goes way, way farther than that though. This guy has a web of businesses that cover a huge swath of the US regulatory scheme and he seems totally uninterested in divesting himself or his family from it. The potential for corruption here is of Russian oligarchic proportions.

When asked about it before he said his kids would run the business and they just wouldn't talk about it. Yes, that's actually what he said his plan is.

Yes some severe conflicts of interests are going to happen. They are inevitable. Unlike using a true blind trust that multiple other presidents have utilized in the past, Donald is simply passing the torch to his kids. That is not an impartial third party or even close. It's a recipe for disaster. The question really is how much will they get away with it?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Pence is playing Cheney in the Bush administration. He's leading the transition team. That is, picking the long list of conservative lobbyists and cronies for Trump to rubber stamp, because Trump doesn't know any of these people and probably wouldn't care even if he did. Just as promised, Pence can run policy and appointments and making decisions, and Trump can get on with making America great again.

 

[realibrad]

Obama did indeed mostly fail on his promises to curb lobbyists. This is more about how the anti-establishment candidate that Trump acolytes were calling the saviour is just embracing the same system so far initially. He was supposed to be this anti-politician almost God like figure doing things totally different from the rest. That's the point.

Yes and No. He was very much the anti-establishment person, but he was not God Like. People wanted to inflate him as they always do with their pick, but it was the Left who assumed that the Right thought he was God Like. There is a reason Trump got even less votes than previous elections.

People voted for Trump because they took a gamble on him making them rich. Its dumb and will likely bite us all in the ass, but it what has happened. Focusing on him not living up to his campaign promise of curbing lobbyists makes him seem typical. I do not want Trump to be seen as typical, because typical has not done enough damage to get people to change what they do.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump's administration? Not only has he not picked anyone officially yet, but he has not taken office. There is nothing yet. Logically, the lists we have seen are likely going to picked. If those people on the lists are picked, then there will be large conflicts. But, by saying that its already much worse is going to get people to tune you out.
Here is the best list I have found so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

Not only are there conflicts, but horrible choices as well. Joe Arpaio for homeland security is very worrying. Bolton from Bush is shitty. But, by you and others already saying this is the worst thing ever before it has even happened makes you look like extreme liberals and will be dismissed. I think you are right that there is a problem with his picks, but by going too hard too fast you are going to push people away. I am not making a false equivalence argument here. I correctly pointed out that the previous comments were a double standard, but that does not mean I think they are totally equal.

There is a building feeling that those who are adamant are extremists. I have been thinking of the best way to explain my thinking on this, and I think I found it over the weekend.

See again, you've been tricked into a massive false equivalence and it doesn't appear you even read my post. The Trump administration itself is inherently a huge conflict of interest before he hires a single solitary staffer due to the fact that he has large business interests that he and his family not only will retain a financial stake in, but from his statements these family members will continue to be part of the daily operations of these firms. This is a conflict of interest without parallel in US history and this is a plain and indisputable fact.

If you want liberals to listen to you then you have to deal with facts, not your feelings. I know that you feel that liberals are unfairly mean to Trump and you feel that liberals engage with Trump on an emotional level as opposed to a factual one. The problem with this is that as I showed you before that's simply not reflected by factual reality. You have to get past what you want to be true and look at what is actually true.

Look at SJWs and how people feel about them. There are real things to talk about, but those things get dismissed because those trying to spread the message do so in a way that turns most people off. It has gotten to the point where even bringing up some subjects will conjure up associations and get you dismissed. Its the same thing when anyone on the Right brings up terrorism to someone on the Left. You will immediately be mocked and dismissed without any thought or discussion. Right now, Trump is tapping into that feeling. Trump has real faults, that we both agree on. Where we disagree is how we discuss those faults. By going so deeply personal, you get dismissed as an extremist and your points will be ignored by that group. You have to be even more controlled to deal with them.

This seems to be a result of a bubble you're in, as most people don't even know what an 'SJW' is and people that use that terminology are their ideological opponents. If you think that's now normal people interact with them you've been duped. I have no idea why you think stating the factual reality of Trump's conflicts of interests is in any way personal, it's just what reality is. It can be very difficult to get away from the realm of false equivalence because there's a lot of social and intellectual pressure to be 'objective', and people usually think splitting the difference between two sides is the easiest way to do that. It is the easy way, but it's also the wrong way.

 

[dainthomas]

Not only are there conflicts, but horrible choices as well. Joe Arpaio for homeland security is very worrying.

I was hoping for Ted Nugent, but Pence is probably saving him for Interior.

 

[trenchfoot]

Hence we revive that old adage "The more things change, the more they stay the same".

I think it's a good thing that Trump is now facing reality and is walking back some of his inflammatory rhetoric. It sort'a enforces my earlier opinion that not much is going to change under his administration, UNLESS he buckles under to the extremists in his party and swings further right as they would like him to.

If he stays the present course and keeps headed toward the middle rather than further right, it looks like we can survive his first term without getting into another war or having to empty our bank accounts under the threat of experiencing another colossal cash grab by the banksters and investment scammers.

 

[theeedude]

Dopes voted for tax cuts for the rich, inflation and higher interest rates for themselves.

 

[MajinCry]

Where are people getting the idea that Trump is anti-establishment? He is the bloody establishment. The other presidents were just fronts for it.

 

[realibrad]

See again, you've been tricked into a massive false equivalence and it doesn't appear you even read my post. The Trump administration itself is inherently a huge conflict of interest before he hires a single solitary staffer due to the fact that he has large business interests that he and his family not only will retain a financial stake in, but from his statements these family members will continue to be part of the daily operations of these firms. This is a conflict of interest without parallel in US history and this is a plain and indisputable fact.

And yet, that is not the discussion here. The discussion here is about his picks, not "his" conflict of interest. If you want to argue that point, then I would back you, but that is not the context of this thread. This thread is about him doing something that is normal. What is not normal is handing off your business to your kids and wife, and saying that is enough. Romney put his trust outside of family hands for this very reason.

If you want liberals to listen to you then you have to deal with facts, not your feelings. I know that you feel that liberals are unfairly mean to Trump and you feel that liberals engage with Trump on an emotional level as opposed to a factual one. The problem with this is that as I showed you before that's simply not reflected by factual reality. You have to get past what you want to be true and look at what is actually true.

Liberal s are targeting Trump in a way that is not helping themselves. I do think Trump should be criticized for thins he says and does. I do not think it should be taken as far as some take it though.

Look at the "pussy" comment. That was used to say he was physically assaulting women. The context was that when you are rich and powerful, women let you do things. the implication being they are willing which unless they were underage is not assault. Doing things like that takes away from the argument that he did do shitty things, like walk into dressing rooms under the guise that he was just checking on things.

This seems to be a result of a bubble you're in, as most people don't even know what an 'SJW' is and people that use that terminology are their ideological opponents. If you think that's now normal people interact with them you've been duped. I have no idea why you think stating the factual reality of Trump's conflicts of interests is in any way personal, it's just what reality is. It can be very difficult to get away from the realm of false equivalence because there's a lot of social and intellectual pressure to be 'objective', and people usually think splitting the difference between two sides is the easiest way to do that. It is the easy way, but it's also the wrong way.

There is some irony here. You thinking that SJW is not a common thing shows the bubble you are in. The big gap in this election was younger people, and just about anyone under 30 who is middle or left knows the term SJW. Youtube is filled with channels that have hundreds of thousands subscribers of anti-sjw channels with millions and millions of views. To think that sjw is not a common term shows the bubble you are in with young people. SJW is running about 4,700 hashtag views an hour on twitter right now.

I'm telling you man, you don't realize the movements going on. This is where the alt-right is coming from. Its young people who do not identify with what you would normally expect. They do not like the standard rhetoric that is used. This is why Yiannopoulos is so popular with younger people. He says things in a way that is appealing to this group because he stays calm but sarcastic. He is literally a gay man promoting a party that wants to exclude him. This only happens because of what I have been saying about how the message is given.

 

[trenchfoot]

Dopes voted for tax cuts for the rich, inflation and higher interest rates for themselves.

Obviously, those folks have a much higher priority than their financial prosperity and well being.

Apparently, what they want is what Trump has "promised" them in very uncertain terms, and what Trump has "promised" them doesn't have much to do with prosperity and much more to do with keeping that well contrived slayer of "traditional values" out of their neck of the woods.

It seems that a rising tide that floats all boats is just fine and dandy so long as "my boat and the boats around me is always nicer than yours over there".

 

[soundforbjt]

A lot of my right wing facebook friends are going to be very pissed when Trump doesn't do what he promised. One has a post asking what promises they want him to keep and it's a list that includes most things he's now walking back. If he continues on this path, he's in real trouble with his voters.

 

[realibrad]

A lot of my right wing facebook friends are going to be very pissed when Trump doesn't do what he promised. One has a post asking what promises they want him to keep and it's a list that includes most things he's now walking back. If he continues on this path, he's in real trouble with his voters.

When you vote for shit, you should expect shit.

 

[buckshot24]

A lot of my right wing facebook friends are going to be very pissed when Trump doesn't do what he promised. One has a post asking what promises they want him to keep and it's a list that includes most things he's now walking back. If he continues on this path, he's in real trouble with his voters.

Yeah and he was finished 15 times during the last year and a half.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet, that is not the discussion here. The discussion here is about his picks, not "his" conflict of interest. If you want to argue that point, then I would back you, but that is not the context of this thread. This thread is about him doing something that is normal. What is not normal is handing off your business to your kids and wife, and saying that is enough. Romney put his trust outside of family hands for this very reason.

So to be clear you agree that Trump represents conflicts of interest without parallel in US history, you just think this additional conflict of interest isn't a big deal? Uhm, okay.

Liberal s are targeting Trump in a way that is not helping themselves. I do think Trump should be criticized for thins he says and does. I do not think it should be taken as far as some take it though.

I don't know what else to say to this as you previously said this was your opinion and no evidence could change it. If that's the case then there's nothing to discuss.

Look at the "pussy" comment. That was used to say he was physically assaulting women. The context was that when you are rich and powerful, women let you do things. the implication being they are willing which unless they were underage is not assault. Doing things like that takes away from the argument that he did do shitty things, like walk into dressing rooms under the guise that he was just checking on things.

Yes, because what he described was sexual assault. How can you be disputing that? Non-consensual touching of someone's genitals is sexual assault regardless of whether they actually stop you or not. That it was non-consensual was backed up by more than a dozen people. That's the beginning and end of it.

When you try to dispute obvious cases like that where he straight out admitted to sexual assault it's hard to take your other statements seriously because you're not basing your opinions on facts.

There is some irony here. You thinking that SJW is not a common thing shows the bubble you are in. The big gap in this election was younger people, and just about anyone under 30 who is middle or left knows the term SJW. Youtube is filled with channels that have hundreds of thousands subscribers of anti-sjw channels with millions and millions of views. To think that sjw is not a common term shows the bubble you are in with young people. SJW is running about 4,700 hashtag views an hour on twitter right now.

I'm telling you man, you don't realize the movements going on. This is where the alt-right is coming from. Its young people who do not identify with what you would normally expect. They do not like the standard rhetoric that is used. This is why Yiannopoulos is so popular with younger people. He says things in a way that is appealing to this group because he stays calm but sarcastic. He is literally a gay man promoting a party that wants to exclude him. This only happens because of what I have been saying about how the message is given.

I work about 5-10 feet away from three people under 30. Only one of the three had ever heard the term social justice warrior and even he had to think about it and said he thought it was a stupid term. It is simply not a commonly used term for lots of people. It's easy to mistake the people you know as representative of people in general. 'Social justice warrior' is the language of internet message boards and YouTube. Most people don't give a shit about them.

 

[zinfamous]

A lot of my right wing facebook friends are going to be very pissed when Trump doesn't do what he promised. One has a post asking what promises they want him to keep and it's a list that includes most things he's now walking back. If he continues on this path, he's in real trouble with his voters.

maybe he is that anti-christ martyr figure that the evangelicals convinced themselves that he is, just to support him? Only, not the type of martyr that they wanted.

Would be great if he were able to permanently jettison the stormfronters out of the Rep party for good--but I wouldn't give him that much credit. And with Bannon staying so close, it's doubtful. This could all just be 2 months of relative "peaceful transition" rhetoric until the brown shirts show up at our doors on January 21.

(damn, what a shitty birthday. :\)

 

[glenn1]

A lot of my right wing facebook friends are going to be very pissed when Trump doesn't do what he promised. One has a post asking what promises they want him to keep and it's a list that includes most things he's now walking back. If he continues on this path, he's in real trouble with his voters.

I bet for most of those FB friends, there aren't enough promises in the entire universe he could walk back that would make them think "well now that I think of it I wish I had voted for Clinton instead."

 

[bshole]

Where are people getting the idea that Trump is anti-establishment? He is the bloody establishment. The other presidents were just fronts for it.

What single thing worries you most about Trump?

For me it is deregulation of banking. The patently insane Republicans are baying for it in Congress and Trump wants it badly too. It is like a pack of wolves around a fresh carcass. I don't recall ANY of the voters calling for banking deregulation. This is something only the most evil corrupt filthy wealthy Americans want. More plunder, more privatized profit and socialized risk, more bubble creating, more catastrophic collapse.

All the sanity added Obama to the banking industry completely wiped out by people voting for the anti-establishment guy...... TRUMP IS THE OLIGARCHY.... YOU JUST CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN!

 

[Grooveriding]

What single thing worries you most about Trump?

For me it is deregulation of banking. The patently insane Republicans are baying for it in Congress and Trump wants it badly too. It is like a pack of wolves around a fresh carcass. I don't recall ANY of the voters calling for banking deregulation. This is something only the most evil corrupt filthy wealthy Americans want. More plunder, more privatized profit and socialized risk, more bubble creating, more catastrophic collapse.

All the sanity added Obama to the banking industry completely wiped out by people voting for the anti-establishment guy...... TRUMP IS THE OLIGARCHY.... YOU JUST CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN!

The US Republican party are yuuuge lovers of socialism, so long as it's the lemon variety.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What single thing worries you most about Trump?

For me it is deregulation of banking. The patently insane Republicans are baying for it in Congress and Trump wants it badly too. It is like a pack of wolves around a fresh carcass. I don't recall ANY of the voters calling for banking deregulation. This is something only the most evil corrupt filthy wealthy Americans want. More plunder, more privatized profit and socialized risk, more bubble creating, more catastrophic collapse.

All the sanity added Obama to the banking industry completely wiped out by people voting for the anti-establishment guy...... TRUMP IS THE OLIGARCHY.... YOU JUST CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN!

honestly the potential damage he can do to the environment. he's surrounding himself with science-deniers. not just climate change deniers, but denying science.

 

[zinfamous]

What single thing worries you most about Trump?

For me it is deregulation of banking. The patently insane Republicans are baying for it in Congress and Trump wants it badly too. It is like a pack of wolves around a fresh carcass. I don't recall ANY of the voters calling for banking deregulation. This is something only the most evil corrupt filthy wealthy Americans want. More plunder, more privatized profit and socialized risk, more bubble creating, more catastrophic collapse.

All the sanity added Obama to the banking industry completely wiped out by people voting for the anti-establishment guy...... TRUMP IS THE OLIGARCHY.... YOU JUST CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN!

Climate and NATO. I have friends and loved ones that are now 100% threatened if he undermines our commitment to NATO. This isn't some fantasy boogeyman joke.

 

[Commodus]

I bet for most of those FB friends, there aren't enough promises in the entire universe he could walk back that would make them think "well now that I think of it I wish I had voted for Clinton instead."

And that's unfortunate if it happens, because no politician should ever be a "Teflon Don" where no accusation or criticism can ever stick.

My hunch: there will be some disillusionment if/when Trump doesn't live up to his larger promises, but his bigger problem will be when it becomes increasingly clear that his administration doesn't know what it's doing. Remember, his team didn't even realize that it had to hire new staff for the West Wing of the White House -- what happens when there's obvious mismanagement of a government division, or when Trump triggers a diplomatic incident? Optimism tends to fade pretty quickly when real-world experiences go badly.