There were only three reasons that a rational person might have considered going out to vote for Donald J Swamp. The first was that he wasn't the psychopath, Hillary Clinton. The second was that he looked to be the least likely of all the candidates to start a war with Russia and therefore WWIII. And the third was that he said he was going to "drain the swamp". They were always very thin reasons. As I wrote back here and here:
"People have elected a loose cannon, and although I will hold my breath and give him a chance, nothing about his character, his temperament, not to mention some of the more stupid statements he has made, gives me much confidence that America in four years will be a whole lot better than the America of 2016."

"Granted, one of the candidates appears, at least on the surface, to be marginally less likely to lead us to a global war than the other. Isn't that a rational reason to vote for him? Possibly, until you consider that the "marginally-less-likely-to-lead-us-to-global-war-candidate" often appears to decide his foreign policy by the use of a roulette wheel, and so whether trusting in the wheel can be counted as rational is a moot point ... The swamp that needs draining is far bigger than the one Mr Trump locates in D.C., and it will take national repentance, not another politician making grand promises, to achieve that."
And so it has proved. Despite being elected on promises of discontinuing America's heinous policies of regime change and fighting hegemonic wars in countries thousands of miles from its borders, Mr Swamp has now broken all of these promises. It is not yet clear whether these promises were always hollow, or whether he has simply caved in to enormous pressure from the neo-Trotskyist Deep State (laughably known as neo-"conservative" (what do they conserve?)).

My guess is that he really did believe it (his Tweets about not getting involved in Syria from before he announced his candidacy certainly suggest this), but thought that he could run the White House like he ran his business empire. My guess is that he was quickly shown that this would not be the case, and that he would either dance to the tune of the neo-Trots, or be deposed. My guess is he probably thinks he can appease them by taking his "tough'n'macho" action against a sovereign state — an action based on completely unproven claims about the use of chemical weapons and, I might add, an action that just happens to be hugely helpful to the Islamist fanatics who are trying to turn that poor country into a Salafist state.

If these guesses are correct, I'm sorry to have to spell it out to Mr Swamp, but he is greatly mistaken. The Trots cannot be pacified. They cannot be appeased. He is now under their total control and is the prisoner of whatever they want him to do. Any refusal on his part and they will destroy him.

But of course being a neo-Trotskyist puppet means that he has now lost a significant portion of his supporters who voted for him because they believed his promises to drain the swamp. By failing to stand up to the neo-Trots, he is now set to incur the displeasure not only of the liberal-left who despise him for other reasons, but also millions of his supporters who had given him their backing. He is now set to be the most unpopular President in history, and the calls for his impeachment will start coming from both sides.

The slim hope that those who voted for Mr Swamp had that he wasn't a psychopath, that he might stop US warmongering around the globe, and that he would drain the swamp now lie in tatters after his vain, stupid, irrational, dangerous and unconstitutional rush to war to appease the Deep State. I doubt very much whether he will be President by the end of the year. The man who promised to drain the swamp has been drained by the swamp. Donald J. Swamp.