Trump 2024 ???

[manifest destiny]

"Drain the swamp" has a nebulous definition. Is the glass half emtpy or half full? Yes.

 

[BugI02]

Is the glass half emtpy or half full?

It's bigger than it needs to be

 

[jamil]

Perhaps "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' would suit you better?

Well, if we're back to talking about Kraken, wild ass claims without any corroboration other than people who have a reason to lie is not a good reason to believe something. Anything is possible. Not everything is likely.

 

[BugI02]

Deflectcon 4, I see

We're not talking literal Kraken, we're talking INGO kraken rules - the idea that, when convenient to a person's preferred narrative, nothing can be accepted that was not adjudicated by a court

Your claimed non-support for Romney and McCain hasn't even been presented for trial let alone taken up by a court, thus I am free to conclude there is no evidence to support your claim

 

[KG1]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

"Drain the swamp" has a nebulous definition. Is the glass half emtpy or half full? Yes.

Still completely full.

The swamp was just as full when Trump left office as when he took office... not a drop drained.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

 

[Ziggidy]

Still completely full.

The swamp was just as full when Trump left office as when he took office... not a drop drained.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Just as full? I think it was revealed just how packed it was. Much larger than most truly thought. The good Trump did is obvious, people who care are more aware of the swamp occupants that previously thought.

I think that is a good thing.

 

[jamil]

Deflectcon 4, I see

We're not talking literal Kraken, we're talking INGO kraken rules - the idea that, when convenient to a person's preferred narrative, nothing can be accepted that was not adjudicated by a court

Your claimed non-support for Romney and McCain hasn't even been presented for trial let alone taken up by a court, thus I am free to conclude there is no evidence to support your claim

Uh. I think you’re making up the rules as you go. You’re claiming I have standards I’ve never used. The only thing I recal about courts and the election is that the proper place to address the claimed voting anomolies is the courts. I’ve also pointed out the courts haven’t ruled favorably for any of the suits Trump has filed regarding the election.

 

[manifest destiny]

Still completely full.

The swamp was just as full when Trump left office as when he took office... not a drop drained.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Your Trump fetish has become weird.

 

[BugI02]

Tell me how I'm wrong?

It's not a literal swamp. You can't measure the water level, so you have no frame of reference to make such a claim

 

[jamil]

It's not a literal swamp. You can't measure the water level, so you have no frame of reference to make such a claim

No. The swamp isn't literal. One can say Trump did not drain any swamp if Trump did not remove anyone for being part of the swamp during his presidency.

 

[BugI02]

No. The swamp isn't literal. One can say Trump did not drain any swamp if Trump did not remove anyone for being part of the swamp during his presidency.

Ahh, but the claim is it is 'just as full when Trump left office as when he took office'.

Really? How would he be able to tell? Wouldn't that require two complete censuses of all the swamp dwellers? Is it realistic to believe that Trump wasn't responsible for the firing of any of them? Is it not possible that hiring of new swamp dwellers might outpace any 'freeing up the future' of any that Trump was responsible for? So even a net gain of dwellers might not be evidence to support the claim. Much more granular information would be needed to prove that claim anything more than hyperbole

 

[jamil]

Ahh, but the claim is it is 'just as full when Trump left office as when he took office'.

Really? How would he be able to tell? Wouldn't that require two complete censuses of all the swamp dwellers? Is it realistic to believe that Trump wasn't responsible for the firing of any of them? Is it not possible that hiring of new swamp dwellers might outpace any 'freeing up the future' of any that Trump was responsible for? So even a net gain of dwellers might not be evidence to support the claim. Much more granular information would be needed to prove that claim anything more than hyperbole

So you're banking on attrition draining it? Because Trump didn't. You're counting on a point that doesn't really serve you. The whole discussion is about Trump not draining any of the swamp.

 

[BugI02]

So you're banking on attrition draining it? Because Trump didn't. You're counting on a point that doesn't really serve you. The whole discussion is about Trump not draining any of the swamp.

No, I'm not counting on anything

You have no data for comparison, the claim is specious by inspection

Do you think every time Trump's actions caused some mid-level bureaucrat to be fired it made the news? He could have been responsible for the termination of hundreds and you would never know it, you are again claiming knowledge you could not have

Had you limited the claim to department heads you might have a better case, but it sounds so much more leg-tinglingly delicious to claim Trump accomplished nothing to that end I can see why SD4L wanted so desperately to go there. I'm only making the point to you because you jumped in as his mouthpiece

 

[jamil]

No, I'm not counting on anything

You have no data for comparison, the claim is specious by inspection

Do you think every time Trump's actions caused some mid-level bureaucrat to be fired it made the news? He could have been responsible for the termination of hundreds and you would never know it, you are again claiming knowledge you could not have

Had you limited the claim to department heads you might have a better case, but it sounds so much more leg-tinglingly delicious to claim Trump accomplished nothing to that end I can see why SD4L wanted so desperately to go there. I'm only making the point to you because you jumped in as his mouthpiece

C'mon man. The government swamp is people in government with power who use their positions to affect policy apart from executive authority. Unelected bureaucrats yes. But with power. People like to call this the deep state. To the extent that the deep state exists, that's what I think of as the swamp. Mid level managers are nothing; they come and go without impact to administrative power.

So, again, what actions did Trump take as president to drain any real ass swamp creatures? And I mean people with actual power. We're not lowering the bar down to janitor here. And we don't care about mid level managers or low level bean counters, the absence of which would not cause the slightest dip in administrative power abuse.

And I'm not speaking for anyone. Whoever else is involved in this part of the conversation can make their own points. You made a point I thought was a misstep in logic and pointed it out.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Still completely full.

The swamp was just as full when Trump left office as when he took office... not a drop drained.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Your Trump fetish has become weird.

So you cannot think of a single drop of actual swamp that Trump drained in 4 years?

Your deflection has become boring.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Ziggidy]

No. The swamp isn't literal. One can say Trump did not drain any swamp if Trump did not remove anyone for being part of the swamp during his presidency.

WHAT? I can be wrong, and if I am wrong, I am certain you will correct me.

Did Trump ever say he was going to remove people from the swamp? All I remember is “drain the swamp”; quite a difference from removing people from the swamp.

When you drain something, it allows you to see what is actually inside. Think of it as a pool. You may know it is dirty but once you drain it, it become clear just how dirty it was.

I think he did just that.

 

[KLB]

WHAT? I can be wrong, and if I am wrong, I am certain you will correct me.

Did Trump ever say he was going to remove people from the swamp? All I remember is “drain the swamp”; quite a difference from removing people from the swamp.

When you drain something, it allows you to see what is actually inside. Think of it as a pool. You may know it is dirty but once you drain it, it become clear just how dirty it was.

I think he did just that.

I've never seen that meaning anywhere.

The phrase "drain the swamp" has been used by politicians since the 1980s to refer to reducing the influence of special interests and lobbyists. It can also allude to the physical removal of water from marshy areas to keep mosquito populations low in order to combat malaria.3 The phrase was popularized by President Ronald Reagan in 1980, who called to "drain the swamp" of bureaucracy in Washington, and created the Grace Commission, which identified $424 billion of wasteful government spending that could be cut.2 Donald Trump repeated the phrase in a tweet in 2017, adding the hashtag #draintheswamp for good measure.1 The phrase is especially attractive for politicians during campaign, vowing to drain the swamp of big government.0

Drain the swamp - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From what I can find Trump said this.

At a Wisconsin rally last October, Trump announced, "It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. This is why I'm proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again."

But Trump had a plan. Trump promised to impose stronger "revolving door" rules, which basically say an official cannot leave government and then start lobbying his or her former colleagues. He did what he said he would do: Set a five-year revolving-door ban for his appointees; it's in an executive order on ethics he issued in January.

He also said he would ask Congress for a five-year lobbying ban on senators, representatives and top staffers. (They currently face one- or two-year bans under separate House and Senate rules.) There's no record of the White House actually making that request.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/525551816/trumps-efforts-to-drain-the-swamp-lagging-behind-his-campaign-rhetoric

 

[oze]

Trump refuses to sign "loyalty pledge". Surprised the **** out of me. Wait. No it didn't. Will the RNC ban him from the 1st debate as stipulated?

Trump Says He Will Not Sign GOP Loyalty Pledge

Former President Donald Trump declared that he would not sign the loyalty pledge, which supports the chosen Republican nominee.

www.oann.com