DRAIN THE SWAMP - Mike Pence axes all lobbyists from Trump Transition Team
138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51379940]As a quick aside, what credible proof is there that anybody is being paid to protest? The top sources are InfoWars and /r/TheDonald, and forgive me if I don't take a screenshot of random Craigslist postings and meme-laden rants about Crooked Hillary and George Soros as proof of a Democratic conspiracy. Donald Trump was the least popular candidate of all time. Is it so hard to believe that people would be outraged by his victory, [I]especially[/I] in light of the fact that he squarely lost the popular vote?[/QUOTE]
There is a video floating around of some of the Hillary campaign leadership admitting this...
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51380239]Without lobbying, there would be effectively no way between elections for interest groups of any kind (whether corporate or non-corporate) to have any access to politicians.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, thats naive...
Yes it will be bazillian times more difficult and rare but nature finds a way, and those lobbyist eggs will be fertilised...
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51380638]That is what I am saying. We are moving back to royalty rule with Trump. We are in a weird turning point in history.[/QUOTE]
are you condoning this behaviour or not
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51380950]Hahaha, thats naive...
Yes it will be bazillian times more difficult and rare but nature finds a way, and those lobbyist eggs will be fertilised...[/QUOTE]
What are you even talking about
Ah, the classic internal conflicts and inability of populists to actually govern. Grab the popcorn.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51378236]So what does this mean? That anyone can become president?[/QUOTE]
Being a snow mexican and what not, I'm not too familiar with electoral business but isn't that the whole point? Like, I always thought the main reasoning behind a "vote for your fav" system was that any person who had the money to actually campaign could go for it. That doesn't mean they'll get very far, but if they get the people on their side - who in turn vote for them, wouldn't that actually mean that anyone can in-fact become the POTUS?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51378174]The way we are heading now looks like the inverse transition from rule of royalty to rule of people.
We got rid of most monarchies because royal families didn't want people having power and became far removed from the people they arose from. Kings were often war heroes or leaders so great that their people instated them with a permanently leadership position as royalty. Our governments are currently set up so that regardless of your bloodline, you can gain power through government office. Right now, the people who enter politics get so far removed from their origins (see Clinton and her middle-class childhood) through corporate influence or wanting ideological control that they stop truly caring about the people that elected them.
Trump is looking like he's bringing in half of his family to run the White House because that's the way he's run his company for decades. It feels weird saying that I'm not bothered by this, because I always thought appointing family members and friends was an abuse of power because they were most often unqualified for the job. Somehow this family of billionaires seems more relatable than any politician I've seen in my lifetime, and they're headed by a orange steak salesman living in 3 floors of Victorian gold and marble.
There's still plenty of time to fuck up his appointments but I am very excited that we are heading into uncharted territory with a Trump presidency.[/QUOTE]
Great post, but we should have dispensed with the "Clinton middle class background" bullshit a long time ago. She grew up about 5-10 minutes from where I live right now in the County Club area of Park Ridge, an affluent Chicago suburb. You should see the houses (mansions) that people live in around there. Her dad was a very successful businessman who did quite well for himself. She's a blue blood through and through, the "middle class" line is propaganda.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51378253]but what [B]political[/B] qualifications do any of them have
serious question. the oval office is not something you can just waltz into[/QUOTE]
People are still throwing the "qualifications" nonsense line around. Can someone please tell me what political qualifications Obama had when he ran for president? What did he know about war, diplomacy, trade, etc.? He was a junior senator who had only completed half of his term by the time he became president. Ironically, this was one of the main talking points from Hillary Clinton during the '08 primaries.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381228]People are still throwing the "qualifications" nonsense line around. Can someone please tell me what political qualifications Obama had when he ran for president? What did he know about war, diplomacy, trade, etc.? He was a junior senator who had only completed half of his term by the time he became president. Ironically, this was one of the main talking points from Hillary Clinton during the '08 primaries.[/QUOTE]
He went to harvard law school and was a constitutional law professor? He had been elected to public office before, which is more than you can say for donald fucking trump.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51381278]He went to harvard law school and was a constitutional law professor? He had been elected to public office before, which is more than you can say for donald fucking trump.[/QUOTE]
Trump has been in an executive position for decades, in which he has had to surround himself with the best advisers for each part of his business empire. You could argue that this is more similar to the role the president plays than anything a senator would do.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51378078]Lobbying isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that there are these loopholes that other groups are trying to take advantage of. However, lobbying is supposedly protected under the Constitution of "freedom of speech" and "right to petition". I wish to preserve lobbying, but I demand stricter regulations on it.[/QUOTE]
Fuck that. Way too much lobbying is for corporate wants/needs, usually to get around laws they don't like or get laws they do like enacted. That shit can stop cold turkey right the fuck now.
The only lobbying that should be allowed are petitions on behalf of the people. Nothing else. I don't give a shit what Exxon-Valdez, Verizon, or Tastykake wants from the government.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381299]Trump has been in an executive position for decades, in which he has had to surround himself with the best advisers for each part of his business empire. You could argue that this is more similar to the role the president plays than anything a senator would do.[/QUOTE]
Except if you judge him by his business acumen he's awful. He's coasted on old money and brand for his entire life. Banks in the united states refused to give him loans because nobody trusted him to repay them.
Uhhhhhhh, Well... The Lobbyists are still in... yet, there is a meeting today.
Actually may not fully ban them. in fact two of Trump's cabinet economy picks is Wall Street,
[QUOTE=Politico]Trump's team is also taking a harder line on lobbyists, after coming under fire for having them on his transition effort. [B]As lobbyists on the team said Wednesday that they have not yet been fired — despite transition leadership saying they will ban them[/B] — the meeting could shed more light the scope and stringency of the ban.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381299]Trump has been in an executive position for decades, in which he has had to surround himself with the best advisers for each part of his business empire. You could argue that this is more similar to the role the president plays than anything a senator would do.[/QUOTE]
A business is not a country. Countries are not something you run with making pure profit in mind, they are not something where being pointlessly ruthless in deals and partnerships is a good idea. In business, that guy you fucked over might not be around a decade later, you can ignore them. Running a country? That country you pissed off is going to be around for a while, hell it might even undergo regime change and fight back.
That and Trump isn't that good a businessman anyway lmao. His "brand image" makes more money than his businesses ever did (outside of real estate, which was pretty much initialised from his fathers business and connections, and you'd have to be braindead to fuck up in that market with that many advisers). This is a man who decided "yeah a sub-prime mortgage business sounds good" just as sub-prime lending was fucking annihilating the economy. A man who thought "yeah I'll sell steaks! but not in any shops that actually sell food! No, I'll only sell through The Sharper Image!" (the steaks were garbage anyway).
He has a history of reckless business decisions, and only has "successful" businesses because he creates a new one for every tiny little thing he wants to do with an existing one or sells the Trump brand to someone else.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
But yeah. DRAIN THE SWAMP! (then rapidly divert the entire sewage supply of the country back to the swamp)
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51380950]There is a video floating around of some of the Hillary campaign leadership admitting this...
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
Hahaha, thats naive...
Yes it will be bazillian times more difficult and rare but nature finds a way, and those lobbyist eggs will be fertilised...[/QUOTE]
If you're referring to the video released by the same man who has, multiple times, intentionally and maliciously edited video "evidence" to misrepresent what was actually being said by the subject, then I can't exactly qualify this as a credible source either.
If the primary sources for these accusations are a known liar, a blatant propaganda website, and a cult internet following of Trump's most zealous reddit supporters, then you're really not leaving me any choice but to dismiss the legitimacy of the accusation.
drain the swamp, it's valuable rat sanctuary land
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51381439]A business is not a country. Countries are not something you run with making pure profit in mind, they are not something where being pointlessly ruthless in deals and partnerships is a good idea. In business, that guy you fucked over might not be around a decade later, you can ignore them. Running a country? That country you pissed off is going to be around for a while, hell it might even undergo regime change and fight back.
That and Trump isn't that good a businessman anyway lmao. His "brand image" makes more money than his businesses ever did (outside of real estate, which was pretty much initialised from his fathers business and connections, and you'd have to be braindead to fuck up in that market with that many advisers). This is a man who decided "yeah a sub-prime mortgage business sounds good" just as sub-prime lending was fucking annihilating the economy. A man who thought "yeah I'll sell steaks! but not in any shops that actually sell food! No, I'll only sell through The Sharper Image!" (the steaks were garbage anyway).
He has a history of reckless business decisions, and only has "successful" businesses because he creates a new one for every tiny little thing he wants to do with an existing one or sells the Trump brand to someone else.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
But yeah. DRAIN THE SWAMP! (then rapidly divert the entire sewage supply of the country back to the swamp)[/QUOTE]
Lol he's an extremely successful businessman. He's worth billions of dollars. Before he began his campaign he was considered the archetype of business success. You've been taken for a ride by an admittedly very successful smear campaign.
Being an executive at any level, whether it be the head of a company or a state governor, prepares you far more for the presidency than having some sort of expertise in any specific area. The job requires gathering and curating the real experts and taking advice from them in order to succeed. The goal is irrelevant. In a company maybe it's making as much money as possible. The skills required to do so can be shifted to some other goal in a completely different context. Do you think Trump knows anything about architecture or construction? He's built plenty of buildings, but he is not an expert on these subjects. Perhaps he knows more about it now than he did when he started but that's besides the point. Obama didn't know a damn thing about military strategy when he took office. He got advice from people who [B]do[/B] know a lot about it and he made his decisions from there. That's the entire purpose of having an executive at all. It's not a position to be filled only by some sort of engineered super genius who knows about everything and can make every decision himself because he's so "qualified."
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381952][B]Lol he's an extremely successful businessman. He's worth billions of dollars. Before he began his campaign he was considered the archetype of business success. You've been taken for a ride by an admittedly very successful smear campaign.[/B]
Being an executive at any level, whether it be the head of a company or a state governor, prepares you far more for the presidency than having some sort of expertise in any specific area. The job requires gathering and curating the real experts and taking advice from them in order to succeed. The goal is irrelevant. In a company maybe it's making as much money as possible. The skills required to do so can be shifted to some other goal in a completely different context. Do you think Trump knows anything about architecture or construction? He's built plenty of buildings, but he is not an expert on these subjects. Perhaps he knows more about it now than he did when he started but that's besides the point. Obama didn't know a damn thing about military strategy when he took office. He got advice from people who [B]do[/B] know a lot about it and he made his decisions from there. That's the entire purpose of having an executive at all. It's not a position to be filled only by some sort of engineered super genius who knows about everything and can make every decision himself because he's so "qualified."[/QUOTE]
Distinctly not true. That's a persona that was created by Tony Schwartz. And yet you're here to tell other people they bought into "smear campaigns"?
Get fucking real.
Here's the thing... Trump is going to be president [I]unless[/I] someone kills him - likely one of you guys lol, or the 'protesters' burn everything to the ground in anarchist, antifa, altright dethsquids or SJW riots forcing Trump to stand down because there is nothing anyone can do differently to avoid him getting into office. Is there somehow a political loophole to get him out? Start a petition through the gov? or follow the #notmypresident guys.
If I'm sounding too harsh / crazy in that post, sorry, I just feel like I'm repeating history.
This is the man, who on day one of his campaign said he wrote the book "The Art of the Deal" even though he never wrote a single sentence, word, or thought in the book. It was all the work of Tony Schwartz, and even in Trumps own mind, he's managed to omit that fact from reality.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=BioWaster;51382042]Here's the thing... Trump is going to be president [I]unless[/I] someone kills him - likely one of you guys lol, or the 'protesters' burn everything to the ground in anarchist, antifa, altright dethsquids or SJW riots forcing Trump to stand down because there is nothing anyone can do to differently to avoid him getting into office. Is there somehow a political loophole to get him out? Start a petition through the gov? or follow the #notmypresident guys.
If I'm sounding too harsh / crazy in that post, sorry, I just feel like I'm repeating history.[/QUOTE]
People like me aren't suggesting to remove him
just watch him like a fucking hawk and criticize him like he deserves to be
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51382043]People like me aren't suggesting to remove him
just watch him like a fucking hawk and criticize him like he deserves to be[/QUOTE]
I am very glad to hear that. We need less fanatics more than ever.
I would tentatively argue that a random fellow who decides to get into politics to change things is far more representative of the common people than a billionaire throwing himself in. Someone who can go relatively untested and unchallenged, coasting on fame and fortune, is far closer to royalty than the common politician, even if those themselves can be corrupt.
I might be late to this but I got partway through page 2 and had a stroke from the "royalty vs people" argument
EDIT: Anyway yeah I don't want anybody to die on any side. That's the thing, we need to hold ridicule and scrutiny and examination close to our hearts rather than panicked accusation & hatred
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381952]Lol he's an extremely successful businessman. He's worth billions of dollars. Before he began his campaign he was considered the archetype of business success. You've been taken for a ride by an admittedly very successful smear campaign.
Being an executive at any level, whether it be the head of a company or a state governor, prepares you far more for the presidency than having some sort of expertise in any specific area. The job requires gathering and curating the real experts and taking advice from them in order to succeed. The goal is irrelevant. In a company maybe it's making as much money as possible. The skills required to do so can be shifted to some other goal in a completely different context. Do you think Trump knows anything about architecture or construction? He's built plenty of buildings, but he is not an expert on these subjects. Perhaps he knows more about it now than he did when he started but that's besides the point. Obama didn't know a damn thing about military strategy when he took office. He got advice from people who [B]do[/B] know a lot about it and he made his decisions from there. That's the entire purpose of having an executive at all. It's not a position to be filled only by some sort of engineered super genius who knows about everything and can make every decision himself because he's so "qualified."[/QUOTE]
Would you be interested in buying some 100 dollar steaks because they have trump's name on them?
[video=youtube;LyONt_ZH_aw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw[/video]
The firing is PR, These are the top positions for Sec of Treasury
[MEDIA]https://twitter.com/MariaBartiromo/status/798996473518100486[/MEDIA]
Both of them Wall Street Bankers.
#FILLTHESWAMP
Edit: I swear eventually Bannon will turn on Trump.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381952] He got advice from people who [B]do[/B] know a lot about it and he made his decisions from there. That's the entire purpose of having an executive at all. It's not a position to be filled only by some sort of engineered super genius who knows about everything and can make every decision himself because he's so "qualified."[/QUOTE]
I don't need Trump to be an expert in every area of policy, I just need him to show intelligence in any single one and receive advice on the other that isn't thrown out the window by the vast majority of subject matter experts, like his economic and environmental stance.
Speaking of which, I dunno if you have noticed but he has surrounded himself by all the people you accused Clinton of surrounding herself with and doing favors for. Thoughts?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51380239]Without lobbying, there would be effectively no way between elections for interest groups of any kind (whether corporate or non-corporate) to have any access to politicians.[/QUOTE]
lobbying is perfectly fine unless its against the interests or to the detriment of the rest of society. take lobbying against climate change action, thats going to fuck everybody over but enrich the fossil fuel giants. same thing with tobacco, the first tobacco control act ever, convieniantly does not control tobacco but makes vapes, a product with no tobacco, pretty much illegal thanks to red-tape.
now some good examples are lobbying for equal rights for trangendered people or flint michegan water help
[QUOTE=Sableye;51382411]lobbying is perfectly fine unless its against the interests or to the detriment of the rest of society. take lobbying against climate change action, thats going to fuck everybody over but enrich the fossil fuel giants. same thing with tobacco, the first tobacco control act ever, convieniantly does not control tobacco but makes vapes, a product with no tobacco, pretty much illegal thanks to red-tape.
now some good examples are lobbying for equal rights for trangendered people or flint michegan water help[/QUOTE]
People (which corporations are made up of) have a right to lobby for their interests, like any other citizens can. Of course, in many instances politicians should ignore them and this lobbying should be regulated to ensure they don't have an excessively powerful voice due to having better resources than their opposition. Property owners in the UK (NIMBYs) who oppose development lobby for their interests (high house prices) and have caused more damage than any corporation could possibly do through the maintaining of the worst policy in post-war British history (Town and Country Planning Act 1947), but because we live in a democracy where people can lobby for their interests, they are allowed to do this. As such, corporations can, and should be able to do the same.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51382330]I don't need Trump to be an expert in every area of policy, I just need him to show intelligence in any single one and receive advice on the other that isn't thrown out the window by the vast majority of subject matter experts, like his economic and environmental stance.
Speaking of which, I dunno if you have noticed but he has surrounded himself by all the people you accused Clinton of surrounding herself with and doing favors for. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
He hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. Everyone should give him a break and give him a chance. Nobody knows what advice he's going to take and how he's going to implement his plans until he actually does so. If he starts acting like a neocon shill all of a sudden then I'll be the first to call him out.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51382584]He hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. Everyone should give him a break and give him a chance. Nobody knows what advice he's going to take and how he's going to implement his plans until he actually does so. If he starts acting like a neocon shill all of a sudden then I'll be the first to call him out.[/QUOTE]
We're so far removed from neo-conservatism, that's like a bush-era worry. Everyone's worried that he'll go full white nationalist.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51382584]He hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. Everyone should give him a break and give him a chance. Nobody knows what advice he's going to take and how he's going to implement his plans until he actually does so. If he starts acting like a neocon shill all of a sudden then I'll be the first to call him out.[/QUOTE]
Didn't stop you from using the threat as a cudgel against people who supported Clinton.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51381952]Lol he's an extremely successful businessman. He's worth billions of dollars. Before he began his campaign he was considered the archetype of business success. You've been taken for a ride by an admittedly very successful smear campaign.[/QUOTE]
No he wasn't. He never has. His parents and grandparents yes, but not Donald J Trump.
He has always been known as a failure in business - he sells his image, and that's it. His whole worth was to collapse if he had lost the election.
He is a previous bankrupt, is in debt to many contractors. He is being sued for his business failures. etc
Calling DJT a successful businessman is a farce.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51382001][B]Distinctly not true[/B]. That's a persona that was created by Tony Schwartz. And yet you're here to tell other people they bought into "smear campaigns"?
Get fucking real.[/QUOTE]
What is with people's fixation on insisting Donald Trump is a failure in business? You bemoan the fact that he's a rich billionaire living in a gilded palace in Manhattan and simultaneously insist he's a failure that has never succeeded at anything in his life. Make up your mind which narrative you want to push for fuck sake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.