Election 2016 (Page 71)

Petraeus has no business receiving secret clearance again.

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here's my tinfoil hat theory: It's sounding like there is pressure being put on Trump by Pence to make Romney his SoS, despite strong opposition from others in Trump's inner circle who say that hiring Romney would be a betrayal of his supporters, since Romney was a big #nevertrump guy. Now, Pence, despite his affiliation with Trump, is hardly a political maverick. He's a pretty straight-arrow, conservative, traditional republican in almost every respect. If I'm borrowing Tony's tinfoil hat for a moment, I can see Pence convincing Trump to hire Romney, and then, the Republican Congress, many of whom have publicly voiced their widespread concerns about a Trump presidency, either impeaching him or not standing in the way of impeachment proceedings brought by democrats in the first year. Trump is forced out of office, leaving Pence and Romney, two "traditional" but unelectable republicans, in the White House without the fuss of having to get them legally elected. Or, if you really want to go full-on "wrap my whole house with tinfoil- infowars-level conspiracy theory": Trump has been conspiring with the GOP leadership all along, in order to place a cadre of far-right, unelectable republicans in the cabinet, and he plans to resign shortly into his term, leaving Pence, Romney, et al in charge. In return, they give Trump an endless series of sweetheart deals on his businesses, increasing his wealth and power exponentially. (Now, watch, Trump will pick, I dunno, Clint Eastwood, or someone as his Secretary of State, and this all goes out the window... )

I do agree that Pence is a lot more "traditional" in the sense of Republican politics and I also agree that Romney is at the table because Pence is pushing him.
I wouldn't be shocked if Romney got the nod for SoS, but I would be a little surprised.  We'll certainly see.
As for the congress as a whole supporting Trump I feel the #nevertrump movement was pretty small.  He has a lot more support than most people realize.  The tea party has put in place quite a few people over the years and the traditional Republicans are struggling to stay in power within their respective houses.

If I were to bet money I'd put it on Patraeus right now for SoS.

Well, given the fuss the GOP made over Hillary's server, that would be an interesting choice, given that he personally gave testimony, as part of his plea bargain on felony charges, that he removed top secret documents, shared them with his mistress, a journalist, and then put them in an unsecured drawer in his house. He also admitted to lying to federal investigators about the unauthorized removal of the documents, showing them to his mistress, and storing them in his house. I know that the world has gone crazy, and nothing makes sense anymore, but I'd like someone to explain to me how Trump supporters feel that Hillary is DQ'd from holding federal office and should be in jail for what she did, but Petraeus is a solid pick for SoS in the Trump white house. Especially since the FBI concluded that she'd done nothing criminal and Petraeus pled guilty to a crime served 2 years probation and paid $100,000 fine.

The key difference is in your last sentence.  Patraeus pled guilty and did his time.  Republicans are incredibly gracious when it comes to people redeeming themselves.  With Hillary she gamed the system through political influence to avoid being prosecuted when she did equally as bad or worse.

The irony doesn't escape me though, so it would be interesting. 

Dude, that is literally the craziest thing I've ever heard. You're signing up to hand the top diplomatic job to a person who confessed to and was convicted of giving away top secret information and stealing Top Secret--not "classified"-- Top Secret documents. And your explanation is "he learned his lesson"? What is this, kindergarten? He didn't spill paint on the class guinea pig. He exhibited terrifyingly poor judgment and broke the law in the process.

You're assuming it wasn't a setup.  haha  (just kidding)

That's your answer? No, I'm serious. I'd like for you to justify this for me. Explain to me why you think the US government should give the top security clearance available to a person who has already pled guilty to giving away secrets. ETA: And you may not use "But but OBAMAAAAA" or "But but Hillary". Your guy is in charge now, and you'd better get used to holding him accountable on his own merits, just like you said you would.

Well first off, you grossly mis-characterize his crime.  He plead guilty to a misdemeanor crime of mishandling classified information and to my knowledge it was because he had classified information stored in an unlocked drawer at his house.  I've never heard that he gave classified information to anyone, so what's your source for that?
Even the classified information that was found on Paula B's computer was never cited as coming from Patreaus.  She was an intelligence officer and had many emails from several key people including General Allen (commander in Afghanistan I believe).

He did have an affair and I don't like that, but it's not a disqualifying event for me personally.

 

In January, 2015, the DOJ and FBI recommended felony charges against him. After initially refusing to plea bargain and denying the allegations, he copped a plea in March of 2015 to reduced charges. Petraeus personally admitted in his testimony to the government that he had provided Broadwell access to secret information. From the 15-page “statement of facts” provided by the government on the case: “On or about 8/28/11, defendant delivered the 'Black Books' (notebooks which Petraeus previously stated contained Top Secret information) to a private residence in Washington where his biographer was staying during a week-long trip to Washington DC. The DC residence was not approved for the storage of classified information. Thereafter, on or about 8/28/11 to on or about 9/11/11, defendant left the Black Books at the DC private residence to facilitate his biographer’s access to the Black Books and the information contained therein.” From a Washington Post article on the case: "In the 15 page statement of facts filed by the government along with the plea agreement, the government stated that Petraeus had provided Broadwell access to documents containing Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information, had later moved those documents to his personal residence and stored them in an unsecured drawer, and had deliberately and intentionally lied to Federal investigators about both providing Broadwell access to the documents and their improper storage. These facts were acknowledged to be true by Petraeus as part of his plea agreement." ^ Lamothe, Dan (March 3, 2015). "'There's code word stuff in there': Case against David Petraeus laid out in court documents". The Washington Post. (Those sources ok with you?)

That's good information and I agree it's not cool.  The wiki article and stuff I'd read in the past just mentioned that he had the book at his residence and it wasn't locked up.  They didn't mention the purpose was for her to see the information.

Is anyone tired of winning yet?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Carrier/status/803764047300722688

For the 1000 employees that aren't losing their jobs I'd say it's a win no matter what the details are.  Even if they cut their taxes to zero, we still win because the employees have jobs.

He's not going to win every one of these and has a lot of work to do in order to make the US a more hospitable place for business, but it's a good start.
In contrast it's quite obvious how little Obama did when it came to keeping jobs in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKpso3vhZtw&feature=youtu.be&t=2m30s

I'm not judging the Carrier deal, because the details have yet to be released.

Handing his business over to Ivanka would be a little easier to accept if he didn't have Ivanka sitting in on his meetings with heads of state, or Ivanka's husband as one of the senior members of his transition team. If he really wants it in a blind trust, he should hand everything over to Tiffany. 

I see no reason for Trump to not turn h is business over to his children.  It's what everyone does.  Yeah, he's going to be the President.  If you find something improper with the arraingement after he is sworn in then take action.  Up until then it's just more posturing by people who can't believe he won.  Let it go.....and hope he's the best we've ever had.

Why?  Because you say so?  You, and people like you who did nothing but badmouth the man AND his supporters?  He owes YOU something?  That's laughable.

The whole outrage over his business is amusing at best.  He doesn't have to do anything with his company by law.  If he decides to hand over the reins to his kids then great, if he decides to sell the business then great.  He can do whatever the heck he wants, and guess what his detractors will still complain about how it's not enough.  /shocker

He doesn't owe me a thing. He does owe it to the American people that he acts in the best interest of America and not in the best interest of the Trump Organization. Keeping 1,100 Indiana jobs from leaving for Mexico is a good sign. Meeting with English politicians and telling them that wind farms off the coast of Scotland ruin the view of his golf course, that doesn't exactly fill me with a lot of confidence that he won't be using his newfound political might for his own personal gain.

As for me badmouthing his AND his supporters? Well, yeah I badmouth Trump. I think he's a disgusting man. But you won't find a post from me disrespecting his supporters. I've never called Tony or Rogillio stupid or ignorant or racist. Just because they see something in Trump that I don't doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong. Hell, I really, really hope that they're right and I'm wrong. Since he's our next president, me being wrong about Trump is in the best interest in America. You seem to think everyone unhappy with the election is some whiny millennial who was raised on participation trophies and is now curled up in their safe space crying that it's not fair. I don't know what to tell you, I'm not. Trump won and my life goes on. 

Hey, I resemble that remark. 

Everything you've said throughout this election, you and I pretty much want the exact same thing in a president. I'm a little more to the left that you, but not much. I just really don't think Trump is that guy. So when I say I hope I'm wrong, I absolutely mean it. If he is the president you think he'll be, I'll have no problem voting for him next time around. But even then I'll still make fun of his tiny hands. What can I say, it makes me laugh.

It's just getting old listening to all the bullchitl.  Donald Trump won the election.....he will be President.  He will lead as he sees fit.  That's how it works.  I've had 8 years of watching President Obama make decisions that I didn't agree with in any manner.  He was still the elected President and I respect that.  It's time for the other side to learn some respect......a lack of it is what got them sitting on the outside looking in right now.  Rightfully so.

Fine.....complain about something he DOES.  This bullchit about his businesses and how he conducts it, along with the "recall" stupidity, and the way he uses twitter (like the same people complaining) is just horsechit.  I especially like the call from the left to get the electoral college members to change their votes.  This who deal from the left is a joke.....from the campaign to the election to the aftermath of the election.  I can't wait to see how unhinged it becomes once he is sworn in. LMAO

It's all good.  I know we like to poke at each other, but every single one of us want what's best for the country which is the awesome part.  Obviously their are differing opinions on what the best path to get there is, but we all want things to be better.
I really wish we could all get together and go have a drink or two. You know how you form an opinion of what you think somebody looks and acts like, but really don't have any idea.  haha

If you want to know why it bugs me so much, think about how you felt regarding the Clinton Foundation and the pay for play that it possibly (probably...most definitely) entailed. In my opinion, this has the potential to be even worse. At least with the Clinton Foundation, they had to actually do a chit-ton of charity work and put a little bit of effort in to hiding the money they siphoned off for their own personal benefit (don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they did benefit bigly). Ivanka doesn't even have to bother hiding anything because she's running a for-profit business.

There are countries who will bend over backwards throwing money, land, or subsidies at the Trump Organization if they think it'll get some influence with the president. When Trump officially backs out of the TPP and approaches Japan to negotiate a one on one trade deal, if I'm Prime Minister Shinzo Abe the first thing I'm going to do is call up Ivanka (who I already met right after the election) and ask if she's interested in building a tower in the heart of Tokyo. See if I can help clear out a little prime real estate for her. Maybe instead of getting the best deal for the US, Trump then gives a little to Japan in exchange for helping his daughter out. Trump might be above all that, but I have no doubt countries will be lining up to try. 

I definitely know where you're coming from.

I guess from my perspective I automatically feel that every politician historically is corrupt as can be and are always working side deals to enrich themselves afterwords.  Trump is a billionaire and in my opinion far less likely to be tempted in that area.  Could he do it, absolutely and I'll be right next to you calling BS if it happens.
I didn't like the Clinton foundation, but IMHO they had already been using it for special favors and personal enrichment based on their government service so I was reacting based on what they did versus what they could do.  An equivalent argument would be if they owned the charity and there was zero historical influence peddling and I was concerned about them possibly doing it in the future.

I'd say another difference is that everyone knew full well that Trump has a gazillion interests all over the world as a businessman and when he campaigned he said he'd turn it over to his kids and let them run it.  As best I can tell he's doing what he said he would do and people are OK with that.

Purely from a business side I think an enterprise the size of his would be very difficult to just liquidate or even hire an outside CEO to run in a trust or something.  The Trump kids would seemingly be well positioned to run it the way it's always been run.  I believe most of them already have very high level positions within the company so they're probably already running a lot of it.

Either way, time will tell and we shall see.

One thing I've learned over the years is that being rich doesn't make people less interested in enriching themselves.  In fact it is often the opposite.