That is the closest you've come in a long, long time (possibly ever) to actually supporting an argument with something vaguely resembling a fact. Let's see if you're willing to flesh it out, eh?
That's because you didn't pay attention to his record and his sponsors and his associates in the senate
So tell me, what did he do - or who did he associate with - that showed he actually wanted to bring about Reaganomics 2.0 instead of Camelot 2.0? And if his record in the senate was so completely counter to his campaign, why did nobody call him out on it while he was on the campaign trail? By comparison, when John McCain was campaigning as someone more conservative than this record, he was routinely called out on it both by his own party as well as by people outside the GOP.
If President Lawnchair was campaigning as someone far more liberal than the person he was in the senate, please show it.
The man did exactly as expected, in every way. And all the insiders are very pleased.
He did more than just pay off sponsors for their investment. Hell, if that was the explanation for everything he's done then he's been paying off some sponsors who didn't contribute to his campaigns. Certainly, the insurance industry dumped huge piles of money into his campaign, but they did that for politicians of every party across the country to ensure that they wouldn't be cut out - however some of his other actions if viewed in that prism involve payments to industries who did not contribute.