Draining the swamp

[Tommy Tainant]

Betsy DeVos' basically paid $900,000 to become the next education secretary

Wow.It cant be any clearer.These Senators should have declared an interest and left the discussion.

I do understand that this isnt a problem that is just republican so I am not trying to make a partisan point.

But ownership of politicians seems to be a massive problem for the US to sort out. You cannot serve two masters.

 

[Eaglewings]

Betsy DeVos' basically paid $900,000 to become the next education secretary

Wow.It cant be any clearer.These Senators should have declared an interest and left the discussion.

I do understand that this isnt a problem that is just republican so I am not trying to make a partisan point.

But ownership of politicians seems to be a massive problem for the US to sort out. You cannot serve two masters.

 

[Rob37]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

 

[Penelope]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

Trump is a 5.

Sorry I misread.

A Patriot thinks America is Great, and for Trump if has never been great!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If she gets rid of common core and puts in vouchers she will have done well.

 

[Eaglewings]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

 

[Rob37]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

 

[Penelope]

If she gets rid of common core and puts in vouchers she will have done well.

She will ruin schools just like she did in MI.

 

[Penelope]

I guess its easy to control even the GOP when you support them , and I do not mean by paying taxes.

 

[Rob37]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

 

[Rob37]

The swamp consists of career politicians. Devos is not "the swamp". Further, our republic was intended to be led by the people through their political selections; a citizen government. This career politician phenomena, where people to to Congress reasonably well off then leave as multimillionaires, is counter to the Founder's intent. One basic theme running through the Constitution is that we must avoid a concentration of power, for that may lead to tyranny. Clearly, having our leaders come from a relatively predetermined class of career politicians undermines this basic concern.

It was thought that leaders in business, industry, law, whatever, would lay their business aside for a period of time and serve in government if called upon to do so. Then they would leave and return to their lives. In this sense, Trump is exactly the kind of politician the Founders intended. Today, people go into politics and stay in it for years. Their income is from politics. They accrue wealth while in politics.

So, Tommy Boy, I am afraid that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being retarded, 5 being Anti-American, and 10 being American Patriot, I must rate your post as a 4. As far as you, personally... from what I have seen I would rate you a 3.

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

I am strongly against having a ruling class of career politicians, and I would very much like to see congressional term limits so that the legislature can be returned to the people, or at least made to where The People have greater access. Should pols be bought and sold? Of course not. Is that what is happening when a pol accepts money? Not always. It is incorrect to assume a quid pro quo, express or implied, every time money changes hands. To assume this implies a belief that all pols are unethical. In fact, when they accept money they have to be very mindful of campaign finance law and make the appropriate disclosures.

In other words, the fact that Devos gave money to the campaign of a Senator who voted to confirm her means absolutely nothing in itself. I suspect that if you look deeper into Devos' political activities you would find where she has also given money to the campaigns of Democrats as well.

So, Tommy Taint, I am sticking with your rating of a 3 on this one. You need to study more and reflect on whether your intellectual capacity is sufficient to allow you to engage in this activity. You may be more suited to sit and stair at a wall. No offense!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The swamp consists of people who pay and scratch each other's backs...you are making up your own rules..lol

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

I am strongly against having a ruling class of career politicians, and I would very much like to see congressional term limits so that the legislature can be returned to the people, or at least made to where The People have greater access. Should pols be bought and sold? Of course not. Is that what is happening when a pol accepts money? Not always. It is incorrect to assume a quid pro quo, express or implied, every time money changes hands. To assume this implies a belief that all pols are unethical. In fact, when they accept money they have to be very mindful of campaign finance law and make the appropriate disclosures.

In other words, the fact that Devos gave money to the campaign of a Senator who voted to confirm her means absolutely nothing in itself. I suspect that if you look deeper into Devos' political activities you would find where she has also given money to the campaigns of Democrats as well.

So, Tommy Taint, I am sticking with your rating of a 3 on this one. You need to study more and reflect on whether your intellectual capacity is sufficient to allow you to engage in this activity. You may be more suited to sit and stair at a wall. No offense!

You are making this a partisan issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that giving a politician $100k does not create an obligation ?

 

[Rob37]

Nope. The "swamp" was always career pols and crony capitalism. You are projecting.

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

I am strongly against having a ruling class of career politicians, and I would very much like to see congressional term limits so that the legislature can be returned to the people, or at least made to where The People have greater access. Should pols be bought and sold? Of course not. Is that what is happening when a pol accepts money? Not always. It is incorrect to assume a quid pro quo, express or implied, every time money changes hands. To assume this implies a belief that all pols are unethical. In fact, when they accept money they have to be very mindful of campaign finance law and make the appropriate disclosures.

In other words, the fact that Devos gave money to the campaign of a Senator who voted to confirm her means absolutely nothing in itself. I suspect that if you look deeper into Devos' political activities you would find where she has also given money to the campaigns of Democrats as well.

So, Tommy Taint, I am sticking with your rating of a 3 on this one. You need to study more and reflect on whether your intellectual capacity is sufficient to allow you to engage in this activity. You may be more suited to sit and stair at a wall. No offense!

You are making this a partisan issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that giving a politician $100k does not create an obligation ?

Is your mind so dull that you are unable to compartmentalize things and ethically fulfill your duty while accepting the money? This happens all the time. Most of the time it is fully disclosed in FEC filings. Donors may think their contributions will buy them something. More times than not they are disappointed.

Look, you are a layman and do not have any concept of what you are rambling about. That is as polite as I can put it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If you read the article you will see that it is the career politicians, that you disapprove of, that have prostituted themselves to Mrs Devos. The swamp has not been drained at all. Check out the article.

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

I am strongly against having a ruling class of career politicians, and I would very much like to see congressional term limits so that the legislature can be returned to the people, or at least made to where The People have greater access. Should pols be bought and sold? Of course not. Is that what is happening when a pol accepts money? Not always. It is incorrect to assume a quid pro quo, express or implied, every time money changes hands. To assume this implies a belief that all pols are unethical. In fact, when they accept money they have to be very mindful of campaign finance law and make the appropriate disclosures.

In other words, the fact that Devos gave money to the campaign of a Senator who voted to confirm her means absolutely nothing in itself. I suspect that if you look deeper into Devos' political activities you would find where she has also given money to the campaigns of Democrats as well.

So, Tommy Taint, I am sticking with your rating of a 3 on this one. You need to study more and reflect on whether your intellectual capacity is sufficient to allow you to engage in this activity. You may be more suited to sit and stair at a wall. No offense!

You are making this a partisan issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that giving a politician $100k does not create an obligation ?

Is your mind so dull that you are unable to compartmentalize things and ethically fulfill your duty while accepting the money? This happens all the time. Most of the time it is fully disclosed in FEC filings. Donors may think their contributions will buy them something. More times than not they are disappointed.

Look, you are a layman and do not have any concept of what you are rambling about. That is as polite as I can put it.

You seem to be very confused. I will leave it there.

 

[Rob37]

These career pols whore themselves out to everybody. Further, she is the President's pick and she is not a politician. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Im getting the idea that you agree with me that it is wrong to be able to buy politicians and that the swamp still needs draining. Have I misinterpreted your views ?

I am strongly against having a ruling class of career politicians, and I would very much like to see congressional term limits so that the legislature can be returned to the people, or at least made to where The People have greater access. Should pols be bought and sold? Of course not. Is that what is happening when a pol accepts money? Not always. It is incorrect to assume a quid pro quo, express or implied, every time money changes hands. To assume this implies a belief that all pols are unethical. In fact, when they accept money they have to be very mindful of campaign finance law and make the appropriate disclosures.

In other words, the fact that Devos gave money to the campaign of a Senator who voted to confirm her means absolutely nothing in itself. I suspect that if you look deeper into Devos' political activities you would find where she has also given money to the campaigns of Democrats as well.

So, Tommy Taint, I am sticking with your rating of a 3 on this one. You need to study more and reflect on whether your intellectual capacity is sufficient to allow you to engage in this activity. You may be more suited to sit and stair at a wall. No offense!

You are making this a partisan issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that giving a politician $100k does not create an obligation ?

Is your mind so dull that you are unable to compartmentalize things and ethically fulfill your duty while accepting the money? This happens all the time. Most of the time it is fully disclosed in FEC filings. Donors may think their contributions will buy them something. More times than not they are disappointed.

Look, you are a layman and do not have any concept of what you are rambling about. That is as polite as I can put it.

You seem to be very confused. I will leave it there.

It is ok to not understand, Tommy. But if you talk about matters with which you are unfamiliar then you risk looking silly. You may want to take a moment to reflect on this. Good luck!