What "drain the swamp" means to Trump supporters (it's not about billionaires influencing gov't)

[Snarky Oracle!]

Is that the best Democrats will continue to offer us? Vote for me because my opponent is worse.

Yes. Sometimes that's all you've got.

I've verbalized many times Hillary's deficiencies, but politics isn't usually about principles -- it must be about strategy, to some degree. Progressives sticking by their principles in November 1968 got us six years of Richard Nixon.

Patting oneself on the back for one's integrity isn't going to prevent what the neocons are about to do to us.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

I'm well aware that nuance, principles, and anti-establishment rhetoric is not popular here.

How dare Republicans stick with their team and vote Trump! You're a Democrat that didn't vote for Hillary? How dare you not play for our team!

Call me crazy, but I find it difficult to defend anything that results in a Trump presidency.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

On the other hand, Trump also came out strongly in favor of Social Security and Medicare, was against NAFTA and TPP, and was against politicians being backed by the banks. For perspective, social safety nets, trade, and politicians being owned by the banks were three key issues where Trump actually campaigned to the left of Hillary.

Trump will say whatever he needs to say to get the votes. Or he'll say whatever suits him in a particular situation and then flip flop later on ("electoral college is a disaster," "death penalty for Julian Assange," etc.) And his views are often under the influence of whatever last person he's met with. In fact the only matter where he's displayed consistency appears to be his defiant and highly suspicious bromance with Putin, despite the vocal outcry on both sides of the political spectrum.

And while campaign promises can be broken, the fact remains that Trump did a better job convincing people he would protect their jobs and entitlements.

In other words, he was better at lying -- for instance, let's see what magic wand he uses to bring back those coal mining jobs he promised or what those workers, many of whom have or will have developed terminal illness because of the very jobs they want desperately back (apparently it's easier to get a check now and die a slow death later than learn new skills), say when they lose their healthcare.

I voted third party, not because I believe Trump was the superior candidate, but as a vote of no confidence in either of the mainstream party candidates.

That's a meaningless gesture when one of those two mainstream party candidates was going to win regardless. You can't possibly punish both of them. At the end of the day you're still lifting one and obstructing the other. As much as you want to be above it, you're still deep in it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes. Sometimes that's all you've got.

I've verbalized many times Hillary's deficiencies, but politics isn't usually about principles -- it must be about strategy, to some degree. Progressives sticking by their principles in November 1968 got us six years of Richard Nixon.

Patting oneself on the back for one's integrity isn't going to prevent what the neocons are about to do to us.

But this is where people get fed up. At what point do Democratic politicians cut ties with Wall Street and the military industrial complex? Why are Democratic politicians having to be "pushed" into supporting universal health care, a living wage, and gay rights? We're stereotyped as the party of "free stuff," pro gay, and anti-war, but the establishment Democrats actually represent a much more conservative agenda.

If we keep electing these neoliberal types like Obama and the Clintons, the benefits are marginal at best. We know they wouldn't set out to strip every government agency of its power, and Obamacare did increase health care coverage for millions of Americans. On the other hand, Obama continued Bush's wars and started his own, he doubled down on NSA surveillance, and he supports the TPP. Democrats seem to compromise far more often than Republicans, and the result is more neocon policies and fewer progressive policies. The Clintons might as well have been Republicans in the 90s when it comes to criminal justice, gay rights, and welfare reform.

Even when Republicans get what they want, they still tell the public that the Democrats govern from the far left. Only a Fox News loyalist believes Obama and Hillary represent the far left. Social commentators like Bill Hicks and George Carlin nailed our broken political system thirty years ago, and not much has changed. Our choices are still Republican and Republican lite, and any attempt to change that is always foiled.

I know you've criticized Hillary and voted for her out of pragmatism, which I can respect. I just felt so disillusioned by what I saw from the Democratic Party this election that I couldn't bring myself to do so.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

But this is where people get fed up. At what point do Democratic politicians cut ties with Wall Street and the military industrial complex? Why are Democratic politicians having to be "pushed" into supporting universal health care, a living wage, and gay rights? We're stereotyped as the party of "free stuff," pro gay, and anti-war, but the establishment Democrats actually represent a much more conservative agenda.

If we keep electing these neoliberal types like Obama and the Clintons, the benefits are marginal at best. We know they wouldn't set out to strip every government agency of its power, and Obamacare did increase health care coverage for millions of Americans. On the other hand, Obama continued Bush's wars and started his own, he doubled down on NSA surveillance, and he supports the TPP. Democrats seem to compromise far more often than Republicans, and the result is more neocon policies and fewer progressive policies. The Clintons might as well have been Republicans in the 90s when it comes to criminal justice, gay rights, and welfare reform.

Even when Republicans get what they want, they still tell the public that the Democrats govern from the far left. Only a Fox News loyalist believes Obama and Hillary represent the far left. Social commentators like Bill Hicks and George Carlin nailed our broken political system thirty years ago, and not much has changed. Our choices are still Republican and Republican lite, and any attempt to change that is always foiled.

I know you've criticized Hillary and voted for her out of pragmatism, which I can respect. I just felt so disillusioned by what I saw from the Democratic Party this election that I couldn't bring myself to do so.

And every word you just wrote is true.

Good luck with Trump.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Trump will say whatever he needs to say to get the votes. Or he'll say whatever suits him in a particular situation and then flip flop later on ("electoral college is a disaster," "death penalty for Julian Assange," etc.) And his views are often under the influence of whatever last person he's met with. In fact the only matter where he's displayed consistency appears to be his defiant and highly suspicious bromance with Putin, despite the vocal outcry on both sides of the political spectrum.

In other words, he was better at lying -- for instance, let's see what magic wand he uses to bring back those coal mining jobs he promised or what those workers, many of whom have or will have developed terminal illness because of the very jobs they want desperately back (apparently it's easier to get a check now and die a slow death later than learn new skills), say when they lose their healthcare.

Obama campaigned differently from how he governed. Hillary was against Bernie's "pie in sky" during the Democratic primaries, and adopted some of his polices while running against Trump. She was even against gay marriage until four years ago. So while flip flopping shows that Trump doesn't stand on principle, it's certainly not a trait unique to him or the Republican Party. Democrats have done the same damn thing for years.

As you said, "he was better at lying." Obama and Trump promised things people wanted to believe, while Hillary basically said those jobs are gone and universal health care is never going to happen.

That's a meaningless gesture when one of those two mainstream party candidates was going to win regardless. You can't possibly punish both of them. At the end of the day you're still lifting one and obstructing the other. As much as you want to be above it, you're still deep in it.

I guess "lifting one and obstructing the other" should be left to the Democratic primaries.

You know who else is "still deep in it?" The DNC, the media, and anybody else that tried to convince the public that Hillary was better than Sanders. Sanders had a clear lead over Trump during the Democratic primaries, and for good reason. Instead, Democrats propped up a seriously flawed candidate, gave no reason to vote for her other than Trump being "much worse," and blamed her loss on everybody except Hillary and her campaign.

I didn't want to be part of that, but I get it. You're a pragmatist, while I'm more of an idealist. I prefer to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may than to choose between two candidates I dislike.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

You know who else is "still deep in it?" The DNC, the media, and anybody else that tried to convince the public that Hillary was better than Sanders.

You're a pragmatist, while I'm more of an idealist. I prefer to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may than to choose between two candidates I dislike.

Everyone's in it. All of those above, who in a sense voted for Hillary by supporting her at any cost, and you, who in a sense voted for Trump by voting for a third candidate.

At the end of the day - in a system where the 2 mainstream candidates get, give or take, 45% of the vote each - everyone votes for one of the two. Including yourself. You don't get to wash your hands of it. Even though you like to think so. Voting third is still in essence voting for one of the dreaded two.

And you most certainly get to live with the consequences of aiding Twitterer-in-Chief.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Everyone's in it. All of those above, who in a sense voted for Hillary by supporting her at any cost, and you, who in a sense voted for Trump by voting for a third candidate.

At the end of the day - in a system where the 2 mainstream candidates get, give or take, 45% of the vote each - everyone votes for one of the two. Including yourself. You don't get to wash your hands of it. Even though you like to think so. Voting third is still in essence voting for one of the dreaded two.

And you most certainly get to live with the consequences of aiding Twitterer-in-Chief.

Failed neoliberal polices haven't been consequence free either.

I didn't go into this blind. I knew voting third party would likely benefit Trump more than Clinton. One says despicable things, but has no policy record to speak of. The other speaks in empty platitudes and has often been on the wrong side of foreign policy and social policy. One promised to protect entitlements and jobs, while the other supported TPP and didn't campaign in the rust belt.

I know I'm supposed to hang my head in shame for "helping Trump win," but the benefits of having Hillary in office would have been minimal at best. We'd still have wars, low wages, illegal spying, job losses, and so on.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I know I'm supposed to hang my head in shame for "helping Trump win," but the benefits of having Hillary in office would have been minimal at best. We'd still have wars, low wages, illegal spying, job losses, and so on.

That's what it boils down to. Was the Clinton & Kaine pairing at best equally bad or worse for the U.S. than Trump & Pence? You certainly have the right to think so. I just don't think your vote says otherwise.

 

[McGarrett]

Failed neoliberal polices haven't been consequence free either.

I didn't go into this blind. I knew voting third party would likely benefit Trump more than Clinton. One says despicable things, but has no policy record to speak of. The other speaks in empty platitudes and has often been on the wrong side of foreign policy and social policy. One promised to protect entitlements and jobs, while the other supported TPP and didn't campaign in the rust belt.

I know I'm supposed to hang my head in shame for "helping Trump win," but the benefits of having Hillary in office would have been minimal at best. We'd still have wars, low wages, illegal spying, job losses, and so on.

A lot if Bernie really is "pie in the sky" though..,HOWEVER not totally crazy..I thought it would be a good idea for Trump to use him to as a consultant. . But the way the press puppets the public that premise is impossible. . maybe in a perfect world..

 

[Frank Underwood]

A lot if Bernie really is "pie in the sky" though..,HOWEVER not totally crazy..I thought it would be a good idea for Trump to use him to as a consultant. . But the way the press puppets the public that premise is impossible. . maybe in a perfect world..

Bernie aimed high with his proposals, which at least left room to negotiate. Hillary set the bar low, claimed everything Bernie offered would never happen, and then grudgingly adopted some of his proposals at the convention.

There are a lot of valid criticisms of Trump, but he came out strongly in favor of Social Security, Medicare, and was against the TPP. That's why there is some overlap between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters, as these are three key issues both candidates campaigned on. To Bernie's credit, he is using Trump's promises to hold him accountable. As such, he's asking Trump to veto any bill that cuts Social Security and Medicare.

Draining the swamp was a bust, so it will be interesting to see where Trump stands on his other campaign promises.