Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
RFK explains why Trump failed to drain the swamp last time:
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
Trump needs better advisors
The day I hear that Trump is consulting with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, I will feel some level of confidence that he can get the swamp drained this time around.
Doesn't Trump know how valuable it is to get the input of an honest man, with a different set of experiences, and a long history of facing the swamp, often alone?
Ron Paul has spent around 50+ years witnessing how the system gets scammed. He can recognize all the deceitful wordings and misdirections used in legislation and policy to trick others into a false sense of security, only to be shocked later when the inevitable loopholes are exploited. I doubt there is any kind of ploy he has not witnessed before so he would be quickest to recognize a replay. Trump needs to seek input from an experienced old-timer who has seen it all before - not just count on starry-eyed, recent-arrivals-to-liberty like Elon Musk.
I think Rand Paul would also have helpful input for Trump because knowledge-wise, he is essentially a clone of his old man, having listened and learned from him his whole life. During Trump's time in office, didn't Rand Paul vote against every appointee Trump chose that eventually stabbed him in the back? This seems so significant to me that I don't get how Trump seems to have missed it!
Trump probably considers Thomas Massie a puzzling pain in the ass, but he should want to know more about his rationale considering his loyal supporters, and the fact that he’s turned out to be right about the danger of some things Trump thought would not be a problem. Trump should be curious about his insight and see the value of consulting someone who thinks differently.
The day I hear that Trump is consulting with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, I will feel some level of confidence that he can get the swamp drained this time around.
Doesn't Trump know how valuable it is to get the input of an honest man, with a different set of experiences, and a long history of facing the swamp, often alone?
Ron Paul has spent around 50+ years witnessing how the system gets scammed. He can recognize all the deceitful wordings and misdirections used in legislation and policy to trick others into a false sense of security, only to be shocked later when the inevitable loopholes are exploited. I doubt there is any kind of ploy he has not witnessed before so he would be quickest to recognize a replay. Trump needs to seek input from an experienced old-timer who has seen it all before - not just count on starry-eyed, recent-arrivals-to-liberty like Elon Musk.
I think Rand Paul would also have helpful input for Trump because knowledge-wise, he is essentially a clone of his old man, having listened and learned from him his whole life. During Trump's time in office, didn't Rand Paul vote against every appointee Trump chose that eventually stabbed him in the back? This seems so significant to me that I don't get how Trump seems to have missed it!
Trump probably considers Thomas Massie a puzzling pain in the ass, but he should want to know more about his rationale considering his loyal supporters, and the fact that he’s turned out to be right about the danger of some things Trump thought would not be a problem. Trump should be curious about his insight and see the value of consulting someone who thinks differently.
Last edited:
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
He's still a CIA asset.
He's trying to get close enough to Trump to backstab him.
Hopefully Trump gets some use out of him and avoids the stab.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,546
Another possibility is, Trump's using him to stab us in the back.
Anti Globalist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 48,933
Wonder what RFK's explanations will be when Trump fails to drain the swamp a second time.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
LOL
fisharmor
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12,455
'I didn't know anything about governing'
I wonder how Trump would feel if he hired a property manager explicitly to be one of his property managers, and after a couple years that property manager managed to get the property another 30% underwater, and then heard the property manager say "well I didn't know anything about managing properties".
He'd toss his useless fraudulent ass out on the curb.
This thread does bring up a good point though. If that's the yard stick - that we need someone with governing experience - then we're limited to either second term presidents who swear up and down they're not going to do it the same way... or governors who have a track record of draining smaller swamps.
The third option - the one that makes the most sense - is always going to slip under the radar for some reason.
The best option is of course the guy who is going to be swarmed by aides telling him he has to fill 60,000 positions, who in response yells at the top of his lungs - "I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. If you want these positions filled we're going to sit down and examine EVERY SINGLE POSITION and figure out whether it 'has to be filled', and only at that point are we going to consider whether itwill be filled, and that is not a guarantee, even if you make a very good case that it has to."
Because, and I really do fail to see why this isn't general knowledge, the statement "these positions have to be filled" IS THE SWAMP.
I wonder how Trump would feel if he hired a property manager explicitly to be one of his property managers, and after a couple years that property manager managed to get the property another 30% underwater, and then heard the property manager say "well I didn't know anything about managing properties".
He'd toss his useless fraudulent ass out on the curb.
This thread does bring up a good point though. If that's the yard stick - that we need someone with governing experience - then we're limited to either second term presidents who swear up and down they're not going to do it the same way... or governors who have a track record of draining smaller swamps.
The third option - the one that makes the most sense - is always going to slip under the radar for some reason.
The best option is of course the guy who is going to be swarmed by aides telling him he has to fill 60,000 positions, who in response yells at the top of his lungs - "I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. If you want these positions filled we're going to sit down and examine EVERY SINGLE POSITION and figure out whether it 'has to be filled', and only at that point are we going to consider whether itwill be filled, and that is not a guarantee, even if you make a very good case that it has to."
Because, and I really do fail to see why this isn't general knowledge, the statement "these positions have to be filled" IS THE SWAMP.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,984
Similar threads
