The debate "Trump appointing of three men tied to Goldman Sachs shows he never intended to drain the swamp" was started by
December 12, 2016, 7:27 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff, WolfiesMom and 11 visitors agree.
Demimi, PoliticsAsUsual and 7 visitors disagree.
Jeff Sessions prosecuted and had executed a KKK head. He fought for the desegregation of schools...
and let's not forget the access you get directly to the president if you donate enough money to his inauguration fund.
and before the apologists start defending his actions, let's not forget how horrified everyone was at people getting access to Hillary as Secretary of state for donations, but getting access to the president is OK right?
wonder if any trump defenders can square this inconsistency out for me.
a man who was rejected as s candidate for being a judge for being a racist.
a man who opposes raising wages, paying for sick leave, supports automation because they are better than people(I'm paraphrasing), and opposed attempts to get more workers paid for doing overtime, as labor secretary.
the wife of one of his largest donors as small business administration
a lawyer who pushed for deregulating campaign financing and election laws (the exact opposite of getting private money out of politics) as his adviser on legal matters.
yeah choosing a banker who had to be bailed out by the government to be your top economic advisor.
choosing an oil tycoon as Secretary of state.
choosing a man who wants to scrap the department of energy to be head of the department of energy.
choosing a global warming denying, oil company ally as the head of the environment protection agency.
another Goldman Sachs executive to run the Treasury.
it's a who's who of elitist corporate ******s.
I said it's shaping up to be corrupt, not that it definitely will be, or is already. it's just looking rather scary.
and also, it's not just that it's corrupt and how corrupt, but that it looks like it may be BLATANTLY corrupt. the thing about blatant corruption that is significant is the likely backlash that will occur. if these wealthy people choose to use their skills to the benefit of the nation then great. but if they use their power to benefit themselves at our loss, we may lose all faith in the wealthy, go hard left and anti wealthy next election.
I agree, i don't like the appearance, but I won't go and say corrupt.
this administration looks to be shaping out to be the most blatantly corrupt administration and the backlash on the wealthy will not be in their long term interest. I just hope the environmental damage won't be beyond repair.
I've never said there is nothing good about him. like every human being he has his good and his bad.
however his bad includes lying extremely frequently. and when these lies are pointed out to his supporters, they just ignore them. blindly defending him.
and then of course the ones disagreeing with u could be just an audience. or trolls
idk about this certain one but in others u just attacked him without saying anything at all is good about him.( if u say u like his children I would laugh but that doesn't count)
I'm not blindly attacking. I am pointing out lies and broken promises. am I wrong that this is an example of massive hypocrisy?
not saying he will be but just giving an example.
it's not that. noone wants to debate with somone who is blindly attacking somone and will not see reason on the subject. Trump could become the best president in the world and u would still insult him.
none of the trump supporters out there want to defend how he is going to "drain the swamp" with Goldman Sachs making the decisions?
or maybe you want to tell me how accusing your rivals of being in Goldman Sachs pocket and then appointing their executives into government isn't hypocrisy?
he has appointed two executives of Goldman Sachs to his cabinet. during the campaign he attacked both clinton and Ted Cruz for having ties to the firm and for being in the pocket of banks. he then appointments them to his cabinet.
he campaigned on getting their money out of politics. he just cut out the middle man and put the banks directly in charge of policy decisions. does anyone still believe his campaign promises?