Buy a car then. Then drive to the airport with medical supplies.

"All but natives"

>In other words, not everyone pays taxes? Do the homeless pay taxes? Is their income taxed?

I am not at all surprised to read that Republicans are putting profit over people.

They're blocking the coronavirus bill because it limits how much drug companies can charge for vaccines.

Any further coronavirus deaths in America should result in the GOP being charged with murder.

It's not about the money, it's about transportation. I don't have my own vehicle, and mom needs it most of the time.

Yes I live with my mom, go ahead and say "Hurr hurr, lewser lives with hez mawm!!". I have financial reasons to still live with my parents.

Buy a car then. Then drive to the airport with medical supplies.

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.

He could have wanted to assign no name, non politicians into those positions...

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?"

"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?"

You answer your own question below, in your next paragraph.

"Anyways, I support giving positions to experts in the field, but this ain't it chief. 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."

and from the prior post:

"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)."

So you're upset if he put's non politicians in place, but also if he put's politicians in place, even though you make a point of putting either in place?

"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?""

My response from the prior post:

"I'm not saying I think that would be acceptable, but I think you get the point."

The point was concluded with, "I'm not saying I think that would be acceptable". I'm not sure how this was unclear.

Personally I don't judge a person based on their race or skin, job or career. Lots of people who don't like, or downright hate their jobs. Some who feel locked in. When someone leaves a job that matches their career path, for a different type of job, less related or non related, I tend to think they don't like their career choice all that much or feel they can do more good elsewhere. That's just me though. If you want to judge people based solely on isolated labels, and not based on their actions in those positions, that's your call.

You are hopeless.

Let me spell it out for you AGAIN.

The fact that he isn't a politician is not a problem. The fact that he was given the task to regulate the exact industry that he has been tied to for decades is. There are literally billions of non-politicians who wouldn't fall into that category. Why not choose of them?

Why does everything have to be reduced to meaningless oblivion with you? Like, if I am criticizing someone who isn't a politician, that DOES NOT mean that I am criticizing them FOR not being a politician. Does that compute?

It is who specifically was chosen, not the arbitrary and meaningless grand demographic group that they fall into...

My god.

Lastly, lets talk about "I'm not saying it would be acceptable". First of all, yes you are. In your last paragraph, you immediately say that you don't give a shit about conflicts of interest when you say that you don't consider a person's background when you appoint them for a position in government. Second of all, do you recall what we are talking about? The whole point is that Trump is contradicting himself and his supporters are eating it up. Again, if Trump's honest opinion is that conflicts of interest don't matter and that it is a good thing to give control of the banking regulation to the CEOs of banks, bad take, but at least its honest. But, one of the foundational pillars of his campaign was explicitly eliminating this type of thing.

I repeat:

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?"

I guess that makes two of us.

You said if it couldn't be certain types of career oriented people, then it should be politicians, after pointing out you don't like politicians.

If it's about who specifically was chosen, then why not be specific about who, and what they've done wrong?

I never said that. I just said because of someone's job title, I don't automatically assume who they are as an individual in their entirety based on that. It would be discriminatory if I, or anyone else did so, and that's wrong. A job title and someone's historical career resume are not the same thing.

I never said that either. I explained why Trump could do it and still feel justified himself. That doesn't mean I would agree, as I mentioned prior.