You mean like this, below? V

I mean, where's the several pages of explanation about what they mean? Are we allowed to choose not to explain for whatever reason?

I don't think 'the swamp' is synonymous with 'government'. If it was about getting rid of the existing government, why does he routinely support establishment Republican candidates such as McConnell (as long as they bend the knee)?

My reading was always that "the swamp" largely related to the influence of money in politics. Just look at the language Trump used when originally talking about "the swamp"

“It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, DC,” Trump said. “This is why I’m proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again".

Ethics reform.

And what were those reforms?

-Five year lobbying bans
-Expanded definition of lobbyist
-Ban on executive officials lobbing for foreign countries
-Campaign finance reform

This was one of the few things I actually supported from Trump in 2016, but while he has made some minor changes, as a matter of course, he has not followed through to the logical conclusion. Instead, "the swamp" instantly lost all meaning when Trump welcomed special interests groups and gave them even more power, invited interference from foreign countries, welcomed money in politics and overall became everything that "the swamp" was supposedly supposed to drain. It just became a way for him to say "Get rid of the things I don't like". There is no ideology in that. As I've said many times, Trump lacks any moral platform (or in this case, ethical platform). As such "drain the swamp" is a meaningless phrase with no weight beyond "Trump will do whatever the fuck he wants" and it seems nobody within his party is willing or able to hold him accountable...

I'm sure my answer below will suffice then. V

I'm not even going to address corruption with you. That's pointless.

You have a point to a certain degree but how soon do all proposals need to be in place once office is taken? Is it assumed he only has 4 years? How long did "the wall" take to happen, and is it everything he claimed it would be? Could more progress be made later on with reforms, policies, etc, or are they all a one shot one time deal if once failed?

This is something I wouldn't argue all that much if Trump didn't get as much push back as he's gotten since the start, from politicians on both sides, along with him no longer being President. To promise something that wasn't given very specific timelines, then say he's never going to keep them and gone to the dark side, would be a little short sighted at the moment wouldn't it? That doesn't mean he's definitely going to get in done in full either though. Maybe, maybe not.

Corrupt. You're using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. 

You're right! it would be pointless, becuase based on everything I've seen you write in this thread you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and wouldn't know truth if it mushroom slapped you between the eyes.

I know you explained earlier about removing pics when replying, but what about the bolded quotes below that were left out? V

Just an honest mistake? Site posting error? Seems like someone else could potentially misinterpret the conversation by leaving something like that out if it weren't corrected, or at the very least addressed.

It isn't a question of whether the policies have been put into place. I understand that there are a lot of factors revolving around when and how legislation is passed. It is a question of whether his actions follow the path of his words. Has Trump demonstrated a commitment to ethics, transparency and reducing the influence of money and special interest groups in politics?

Well, no.

For example, despite talking a big game about how Clinton was controlled by Goldman Sachs and how he would eliminate the influence of Wall Street in politics, he appointed Goldman Sach's number two as his Chief Economic Adviser and a long time Goldman Sachs exec and partner as his treasury secretary. This pattern followed through to many of the other positions that he has granted (virtually every appointee is either a career politician or a representative of a special interest group it seems). He has demonstrated absolutely no commitment to reducing the influence of these special interest groups and empowering the people. These are not things that you could argue were a result of the pushback that he has faced. Fact is, Trump has filled our Federal Government with the exact kind of shady, special interests that he claimed to be fighting against. His administration is the swamp.

He could have wanted to assign no name, non politicians into those positions, but it was made pretty clear by many early on, even by some of his own party, that Trump would be a lousy President because he lacked a political background. Since Trump may have taken that advice and put some politicians into those positions, are you saying it would definitely be better if a non political individual became Prez, and they appointed no name, non political people into those roles? I mean, he fires Comey, yet still get's beef about it, even though Comey has come out since and pointed out himself that there were problems, some fairly significant, that he wasn't taking care of and handled poorly. Those would be legit grounds for dismissal, by admittance, and yet much of his opposition aren't ok about it period. If Trump can't legitimately fire someone for being the wrong person for the job, then why would it matter if he happened to put the wrong person into that same position or others? If he's going to get backlash regardless, why should he care what his opposition thinks? I'm not saying I think that would be acceptable, but I think you get the point.

As for the businessman, I don't remember Trump saying all businessman are super greedy and corrupt. If that were the case, considering Trump himself is said to be by some, one of the most devious businessman alive, how is it possible he was able to pass up his Presidential salary? You could say it's chump change to him, but not to a super greedy big businessman it's not. Did the reason have anything to do with the checks and balances the overall system has in place, to basically force even the worst politicians to remain in line and do good things for the sake of the people? Could it be possible Trump and/or the specific people he chose aren't the crooks they are made out to be?

Just because your career title may be plumber, doesn't mean you love to deal with crap. It's something that needs to get done though. It also doesn't mean if you take another type of job, that you're going to use your plumbing skills to influence what happens at your new workplace. Even if you did, it doesn't mean you're going to cause plumbing problems to benefit you, or that you'd help out your plumbing friends in whatever way you could within your new workplace. Just because Trump has politicians, businessman, investment bankers, etc, working in the Gov, doesn't mean they're using it for their advantage. If Trumps business is losing so much by him being Prez, then why would these others want to risk the same, if all they care about is getting as rich as possible?

It's also important to point that when Trump makes a negative point against Wall Street, he's just generalizing. No different than using MAGA in general. Obviously not all of Wall Street is crooked and corrupt, just like how Trump isn't going to fix every last one of America's problems, let alone the notion that a great America is a very specific thing that can be agreed upon.

I struggle to understand what you are trying to say for half this post. I criticized Trump's decision to put a specific non-politician into these roles, and you come out asking me if it would have been better if Trump appointed someone who wasn't a politician? What? And then you say "Why should he care what the opposition thinks" when I am specifically talking about HIS OWN CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND THE THINGS HE SUPPOSEDLY STANDS FOR. WHAT?

Anyways, I support giving positions to experts in the field, but this ain't it chief. You don't put people in power who are intricately and deeply connected with the industry they are supposed to be regulating. Give a Harvard economics professor and researcher the position if you don't want to give it to a politician, not a fucking bank tycoon.

Honestly, this post is terrible. Like, virtually nothing in it holds any relevance and the few things that do are just awful takes. You even threw in a terrible and completely unnecessary metaphor because of course you did. Again, if Trump thinks "Lets just fucking go hog with filling politics with money and special interest groups and conflicts of interest" why would one of the central pillars of his campaign ("Drain the Swamp") be centered around the exact opposite position? He sold an idea and then said "Fuck you, I do what I want" to the people who supported the idea (again, his own supporters), and now his supporters are acting as if this was the fucking promise. Its nutters.

Again, if you think conflicts of interest are great and everybody in government should have them, that is a terrible take but at least you own it, but you can't simultaneously say "We need to get these conflicts of interest out of politics", fill your administration with conflicts of interest and then sit back and say "I did it! Aren't I the best?"