Say it with me - DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Say it with me - DRAIN THE SWAMP!

in order to drain the swamp you must become the swamp

>Swamp to be drained
>Need team of swamp niggers to ensure swamp is drained to its fullest extent.

I don't know OP, seems like a reach saying Trump has sold out before he's even had a single day in office. Not defending his choices for cabinet positions, but maybe get some prep H for all the butt hurt you have.

While I'll admit we need to wait and see to be 100% sure, the mental gymnastics of continuing to be absolutely certain someone who said they'll stop vandals from burning down houses but is dousing the remaining ones in gasoline is kind of...Idk, cucked? (esp. given so many of the promises, such as the wall and jailing shillary, were just """""""symbolism"""""")

Is it really that outrageous to think someone who has already discarded so many of his "promises" can't drop a few more?

>Swamp refers to washington elites
>Brings in a number of military and corporate figures instead of a list of senators
Could be a lot worse, user

Also, if you consider corporate and government swamp, you've just classified 100% of the non-NEET population as swamp creatures.

People who want power/control are way worse than people who want money

You're right. He should just appoint and hire truck drivers, farmers, factory workers and waiters.

Idiot.

>Says killary (and Cruz) is the bought dog of wall street
>Proceeds to hire the richest cabinet in history, including 3 former member of Goldman Sachs and the fucking CEO of ExxonMobil (on the advice of Gates and Rice, who literally get paid to do consulting for Exxon and other large corps)

...At what point were super powerful wallstreet/megacorp entities that influenced DC decision making NOT a part of the Swamp???

Are you that blinded by your cuckoldry?

>rich and successful people is the swamp
>not corrupt politicians pushing for open boarders and taking the guns

are you leftists trying to be retarded?

No, I'm raising a point for you to consider. What entities would you accept as non-swamp that are also qualified for positions? You've ruled out political and industry figures, which leaves academics that you'd no doubt deride for being liberal ivory tower dwellers.

What would satisfy you?

The only people who voted for Trump are rural and suburban retards.

City people all voted for Hillary.

This.

Do you dumb fucks think that ultra-successful billionaires like Trump want to surround themselves with no-name losers?

The key is that Trump is not CONTROLLED by these people. For the first time in a long time we'll have a president who gives them orders and not vice versa.

>says trump has already discarded so many of his "promises"
>Trump hasn't discarded a single one

Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

>The only people who voted for Trump are rural and suburban retards.

Here's just a few:
>Not locking up Hillary
>Not actually building a wall (just the fence, which he said it wouldn't be)
>Not deporting all the illegals
>Almost certainly not introducing term limits to congressmen

Get out of here, Cletus. We've been had.

Holy shit, how about starting with someone who's qualified?
Just take Energy for example - We had a Nobel prize winning physicist then the head of physics from MIT.
Now, a rich guy who couldn't even pass remedial science class in college?

I don't know why this is so hard for you.

>Starting with someone who's qualified
You've completely changed the argument. First the debate was that these were swampy picks. Now, when you have no answer to that, you're moving on to attack their qualifications, which is something entirely different.

I didn't rule out anyone except for literally the people he campaigned against having shit for brains. The military figures (particularly mattis) are actually more than qualified for the positions he has appointed them to, with exception to maybe Flynn who was kind of a leaker. Things like Perry for energy, and Carson for Urban Development (as well as the fuckton of literal corporate shills) mark a stark contrast due to a) being the literal swamp he sought to drain or b) having run nothing like the agencies they've been given in their entire lives.

At least someone else gets it

>What entities would you accept as non-swamp that are also qualified for positions?

>You've completely changed the argument.

The goalposts shifted to a question of qualifications as well as nominal classification (swamp or non swamp). I think user is doing the right thing by answering a fairly reasonable question. Read more or lurk more.

>libs still dont know drain the swamp meant getting rid of corruption

he isnt even going to need a campaign in 2020 the liberals are so hopeless

>Getting rid of corruption means replacing the bought senators and representatives with their buyers from Goldmann Sachs and ExxonMobil. Who needs a middleman?

This level of mental gymnastics is just sad, I am so glad we both get the same number of votes.

Nah, faggot. The question was still "what candidates would satisfy non-swamp criteria". I added "and be qualified" so that options like pointed out wouldn't be raised.

I've never claimed all of the picks were or were not qualified because it wasn't the discussion. I was raising a hypothetical to point out that most people bitching about the picks have no consistent definition of what satisfies "swamp" picks.

The retards trying to reply with "SO U THNK THEYR QUALIFIDG?" are idiots who can't answer the question because they don't have an answer.

I'm starting to believe Barron is fucked in the head

>we both get the same number of votes

Technically in America suburban and rural retards get more votes.

You didn't see him talking about the wall and the illegals recently then. Sessions will get around the Hill thing, shill

Your primary question: "what candidates would satisfy non-swamp criteria" was answered irregardless though: literally anyone except those representing the large corporate interests and bought politicians he specified as being the swamp of corruption in Washington (of which Mnunchin, Cohn and Tillerson are particularly egregious choices) are fine, fuckwit.

Is this one of those "I was only pretending to be retarded" episodes btw? If you add the additional qualifier "and be qualified" (because of a sarcastic response by someone else) it's not the people replying that are changing the argument. Trying to "seal off" responses and reveal inconsistencies in logic (of which there really weren't, since the only qualification being sought was the picks ran something remotely similar before) is still you shifting the goalposts, but honestly I'm starting to think we're the dumb ones for continuing to stoke this dumpster fire.

You've made up your mind, and so have we. Enjoy your new swamp, m80.

S A Y
I T
W I T H
M E

Well he literally said we're not locking her up just a couple weeks back, so I guess he must've changed his mind again. Even still, we're not getting a concrete and steel wall: it's gonna be more fence and that's pretty much all.

The day of the rake cannot come soon enough (but you're right, and it's just how the system works lol)

And people like you who think cities are the only relevant place are why this is a good thing.

Questions:
Who would have been better picks?
Why is Tillerson bad? He's an engineer, worked his way up to CEO. Is it because oil is evil? or CEOs are evil?

>using spaces in a fuckin hashtag

>You've made up your mind, and so have we.
I haven't given you my personal opinion on the topic, "irregardless" of your shitposting. I brought up the issue because most posters, you included, are inconsistent fuckwits and I'm curious as to actual answers.

So, you say any non-large corporate interest. That leaves small, domestic business owners and "approved" politicians (and military, but there's no way the whole cabinet can be military figures). Can you give some examples of people who fit that criteria and are also qualified in your eyes? You've continued bitching but not suggested your picks that satisfy your arcane allowances.

Protip: anyone who is anything in industry, academia, or government is going to have an extensive CV with major players on it. That's how careers are built in the majority of cases.

>Complains that I've not suggested what we do after we put out the fire, merely that I've identified a fire and want to put it out.

Let me reiterate, because I'm beginning to think you have an issue with reading comprehension. My "picks", that at least satisfy the President elects own public views (as it is his will which determines them) are:

>Literally anyone except those representing the large corporate interests and bought politicians he specified as being the swamp of corruption in Washington (of which Mnunchin, Cohn and Tillerson are particularly egregious choices)

Please note the "he specified" part, which is critical. Goldmann Sachs was literally one of the entities he chided Shillary and Cruz for being involved with, which is why those CABINET picks earn my particular disgust. Who I (and you for that matter, which is why I never asked) specificallu consider qualified is irrelevant, it is Trump's views and actions which we should focus on.

As of now, it consists of saying he'll empty the swamp and doing the opposite lel.

He can make all sorts of deals with foreign nations that are good for Exxon but not necessarily good for America.

are government picks supposed to lessen their stake in companies? like you can't own $X of stock?
if he's not on Exxon's payroll anymore why would he care?
but then again why should he work for the government if he's taking a 99% pay cut?

He was their CEO right up until he was appointed SoS, you know damn well he's going to keep working in their interest the same as everyone else who goes through the revolving door of govt to corp and back jobs.

Most of his cabinet are people who held the title of Business Executives, they're business people, not career politicians. They know how to make jobs. Trump is keeping a few Globalists here and there in order to bring them under control. If I were to drain the swamp, I would not kick them all out, I'd save a few, and get inside intel in how they operate.

You need to understand how his mind is working. When he says "Drain the Swamp" its not by kicking out millionaires/billionaires, it's about getting rid of the Anti-Gunners, the Anti-Globalists, the pro Open Borders crowd and so on. He's bringing in people that actually fight against globalist agendas. He's bringing in people that know how to get things done.

Why is he hiring Goldman Sachs people? Because they run the show. They know how the system works. Take Bannon for example, a strong anti-new world order opponent, yet, he has connections to Goldman Sachs.

>hrudfurhurrudurr Trump isn't draining the swamp!!
>brings in Nationalist Mattis, Anti-new world order Flynn
You're always falling for media tactics of "Trump isn't draining the swamp, it's all a lie".

Do you truly understand what draining the swamp means? You're not going to hire a sandwich maker from Florida to be in charge of the banking sector..

"I'm going to get business people, we're going to run America like a business" - Trump during his campaign.

Pic related.

he's required to divest his stock. so how much interest would he really have in favoring exxon after that?
how does the revolving door work?

He is surrounding himself with successful people, he wont take a bunch of penniless socialist cucks to the office.

>hiring this many white males

Trump is a retard