Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkStar]

At least in Trump's case, it did have a specific meaning. "Draining the swamp" meant reducing corruption (as Frumple noted) and removing unneeded bureaucracy to make the government more efficient (basically small government). Congress and most of the judicial branch might be out of the President's reach, but Trump does have access to some executive bureaucracy. Of course, in practice Trump didn't really "drain the swamp" - he simply left some important posts unfilled and he filled others with obviously corrupt people (but they're not career politicians, so that makes it OK by definition, right?).

[Descan]

I think what conservatives want is a free-market type of healthcare, with lots of specialist offices competing for customers which would result in better (and possibly cheaper) care. The obvious problems with this is the people who can't afford anything.

That's basically what Canada (Ontario?*) has, only instead of you paying for it, taxes do. Except for that, every medical office is privately run and pretty much competes with any other for patients. I'm not sure about hospitals but I think they're similar.

So you get the competition part without the, you know, gouging part or the ignoring poor people part.

*IIRC it's a federally mandated and partially federally funded system to have public tax pay for money, but the *how* and the system itself is provincially managed, so other provinces (probably Quebec) might have a different system.)

*To be clear, it's the provincial government holding all the cards here when it comes to negotiating the private practices; they either put up with the fee they get per patient, or they don't get any patients. Or pay.

[birdy51]

I've taken 'drain the swamp' to mean destroy beaucracy and regulation. Because surely, they both do nothing..

[wobbly]

So it's not an euphemism for something else?

[inteuniso]

So it's not an euphemism for something else?

... Exploiting the locals of the district and taking all the money out of DC?

[Playergamer]

daily reminder that we shot down a syrian plane while not at war with syria

you don't even have to like assad, but this "authorization of force" bullshit needs to die.

[sluissa]

daily reminder that we shot down a syrian plane while not at war with syria

you don't even have to like assad, but this "authorization of force" bullshit needs to die.

Meh.

[Rolan7]

/drunk, and putting aside everything that Assad has done.  Literally irrelevant to this.

We gave that plane every opportunity to stand down.  And it either bombed our coalition forces (if you believe our government), or maybe it blatantly ignored the USA forces attempting to hail it and dropped bombs on our shared enemies.

Sorry/notsorry that I think Assad pulled some shit, here.  Basically, called a bluff, at the expense of some poor pilot- who I hope is alive and okay, and not in ISIS hands.

[Frumple]

... wait, did we get another one? Or was it just the same one from, like... a day or three ago or somethin'.

E: Because, all other things aside, including basic decency and a sense of ethics, I need three before this becomes enemy action, I get to call this a no-fly zone, and then laugh and laugh and laugh.

[Playergamer]

i was away for a week and i figured it's not too late to say something.

i mean, we aren't at war with syria. assad is a scumbag but shooting down a sovereign nation's aircraft because they are bombing the rebels we're proxy-warring against their proxylord russia seems pretty illegal.

[Frumple]

Iirc, the technical excuse was something about american assets in the region being bombed, despite attempts to get them to stop. Not necessarily hit, but in danger of it if the attack continued.

... that said, it did just hit me there's some kind of terrifying irony to the US using that to claim attacks should have been stopped, when we're apparently pretty okay with (at the absolute least our allies) bombing hospitals and whatnot because there's terrorists or whatever inside. We're pretty clearly on board with wrecking otherwise allied or unaffiliated entities if it hits something we want hit, heh.

[Playergamer]

well that's different though because we're america.

+1776 exceptionalism.

[Baffler]

We're also fine with doing it ourselves. I wonder what would have happened if a Russian jet had downed our own aircraft to prevent either of these?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/us-fighter-jets-bomb-assad-tank-convoy-advancing-coalition-base/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_Deir_ez-Zor_air_raid

[Frumple]

I'd imagine some degree of hilarity, and not in the funny ha ha sense.

[Rolan7]

well that's different though because we're america.

+1776 exceptionalism.

Still /drunk, but is it really... mrm "american exceptionalism" if we stop a bombing run against our "allies"?  (quotes because it is admittably rather loose)

I understand if you claim we actually didn't contact the plane beforehand.  I understand, and I don't agree.
We also claim we contacted Russia, and they're claiming we did not.

Who is right?  That's an actual question we, as a democratic state, need to actually figure out.  It's our duty as voters.
If only we had more than 2 options