|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 17 2016 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 21:39 Madkipz wrote:On November 17 2016 21:25 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 20:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 19:59 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 11:47 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 11:42 Sent. wrote:On November 17 2016 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2016 08:53 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, are there still any open allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of our president-elect? Or did they basically drop off after they stopped being politically relevant? I don't think anyone of them actually filled charges, so they are not relevant. I'm more interested in Trump's promise to sue them "after the election". He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them, at the very least. Not him personally obviously, but someone from his team. I mean, beating a dead horse against an immovable wall here, but... Any slander charge brought up against Trump's accusers by Trump will be instantly struck down by any reasonable judge or jury the second they are shown the video of Trump admitting that he does that. And it's not slander if there's no damage to his reputation, which was ruined by his own exact words on camera, nor is there reasonable doubt that their claims are untrue. He's not going to sue anyone, just as he's never sued the tens of people he said he would sue. It's an act to look tough and deflect the accusation. Also where is this evidence that the women were paid to do anything? You're lying here just as much as you're accusing that they are doing. And please don't cite the O'Keefe video. Your political bias is so strong you can't even read. Unlike you and your SJW crowd, I do not consider myself a truth bearer when things are unclear, so allow me to repeat myself: "He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them". See what I did there? I express my opinion without presenting it as an undeniable fact, maybe you could try that. That you say there is no "reasonable doubt" when there is no conviction probes how much you and your political camp believe in the important of due process or western values in general. Your reasoning on Trump's tape also highlight the deeper issue within some people that willingly blur the difference between words and actions for political gain. This isn't even political. You made a statement, I'm rebutting it. Your statement lacks evidence. My claim is that the law system will never accept the charges of slander against the women. Just as the same law system will never accept their charges against him without evidence. Why even have an opinion if contradictory evidence just makes you call me names and deflect onto SJWs. Christ. and yet the media machine were allowed to gobble it up and spew it out like vomit and didn't even hesitate about smearing it all over a president elect without a thought to whether or not it was actually true. That's not journalism. It's partisan war propaganda. Note that all these accusations did not surface until Trump, by his own factual words, admitted to sexually harassing women and then tried to deny the very words caught on tape as "baseless lockerroom talk". Its hardly partisan war propaganda when they are collaberating statements with Trump's own words caught on tape.
That is the kind of shifting of goalposts that makes Gawker sized mistakes in judging what is in the public interest.
The logic being used here is thus: Trump said this bad thing and everyone is saying that Trump said this bad thing, and it's really popular therefore these people saying trump did a bad thing to them years ago without evidence or pray tell a police rapport are totally not exaggerating or outright lying for attention / defamatory reasons / political reasons or any other sort of scam. We must devote hours of our time broadcasting this.
This is the kind of smearing of feces that makes the national media in Norway look neutral. Why? Because they actually have to give both sides their say. "Trump denies allegations of sexual misconduct from several sources" is all the news there was and should have been.
|
On November 18 2016 04:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Flynn is going to take over as NSA.
Wonder if his current and undisclosed lobbying work for Turkey will be in the headlines. Conflicts of interest with foreign governments are certainly newsworthy.
|
On November 18 2016 04:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2016 21:39 Madkipz wrote:On November 17 2016 21:25 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 20:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 19:59 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 11:47 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 11:42 Sent. wrote:On November 17 2016 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2016 08:53 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, are there still any open allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of our president-elect? Or did they basically drop off after they stopped being politically relevant? I don't think anyone of them actually filled charges, so they are not relevant. I'm more interested in Trump's promise to sue them "after the election". He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them, at the very least. Not him personally obviously, but someone from his team. I mean, beating a dead horse against an immovable wall here, but... Any slander charge brought up against Trump's accusers by Trump will be instantly struck down by any reasonable judge or jury the second they are shown the video of Trump admitting that he does that. And it's not slander if there's no damage to his reputation, which was ruined by his own exact words on camera, nor is there reasonable doubt that their claims are untrue. He's not going to sue anyone, just as he's never sued the tens of people he said he would sue. It's an act to look tough and deflect the accusation. Also where is this evidence that the women were paid to do anything? You're lying here just as much as you're accusing that they are doing. And please don't cite the O'Keefe video. Your political bias is so strong you can't even read. Unlike you and your SJW crowd, I do not consider myself a truth bearer when things are unclear, so allow me to repeat myself: "He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them". See what I did there? I express my opinion without presenting it as an undeniable fact, maybe you could try that. That you say there is no "reasonable doubt" when there is no conviction probes how much you and your political camp believe in the important of due process or western values in general. Your reasoning on Trump's tape also highlight the deeper issue within some people that willingly blur the difference between words and actions for political gain. This isn't even political. You made a statement, I'm rebutting it. Your statement lacks evidence. My claim is that the law system will never accept the charges of slander against the women. Just as the same law system will never accept their charges against him without evidence. Why even have an opinion if contradictory evidence just makes you call me names and deflect onto SJWs. Christ. and yet the media machine were allowed to gobble it up and spew it out like vomit and didn't even hesitate about smearing it all over a president elect without a thought to whether or not it was actually true. That's not journalism. It's partisan war propaganda. Note that all these accusations did not surface until Trump, by his own factual words, admitted to sexually harassing women and then tried to deny the very words caught on tape as "baseless lockerroom talk". Its hardly partisan war propaganda when they are collaberating statements with Trump's own words caught on tape. That is the kind of shifting of goalposts that makes Gawker sized mistakes in judging what is in the public interest. The logic being used here is thus: Trump said this bad thing and everyone is saying that Trump said this bad thing, and it's really popular therefore these people saying trump did a bad thing to them years ago without evidence or pray tell a police rapport are totally not exaggerating or outright lying for attention / defamatory reasons / political reasons or any other sort of scam. We must devote hours of our time broadcasting this. This is the kind of smearing of feces that makes the national media in Norway look neutral. Why? Because they actually have to give both sides their say. "Trump denies allegations of sexual misconduct from several sources" is all the news there was and should have been.
Norwegian media did that? Wow, austria media always judged him
|
On November 18 2016 04:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 04:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Flynn is going to take over as NSA. Wonder if his current and undisclosed lobbying work for Turkey will be in the headlines. Conflicts of interest with foreign governments are certainly newsworthy.
They're only meaningful or newsworthy if they're conflicts for people on the team you don't support.
On November 18 2016 04:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2016 21:39 Madkipz wrote:On November 17 2016 21:25 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 20:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 19:59 Blisse wrote:On November 17 2016 11:47 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2016 11:42 Sent. wrote:On November 17 2016 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2016 08:53 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, are there still any open allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of our president-elect? Or did they basically drop off after they stopped being politically relevant? I don't think anyone of them actually filled charges, so they are not relevant. I'm more interested in Trump's promise to sue them "after the election". He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them, at the very least. Not him personally obviously, but someone from his team. I mean, beating a dead horse against an immovable wall here, but... Any slander charge brought up against Trump's accusers by Trump will be instantly struck down by any reasonable judge or jury the second they are shown the video of Trump admitting that he does that. And it's not slander if there's no damage to his reputation, which was ruined by his own exact words on camera, nor is there reasonable doubt that their claims are untrue. He's not going to sue anyone, just as he's never sued the tens of people he said he would sue. It's an act to look tough and deflect the accusation. Also where is this evidence that the women were paid to do anything? You're lying here just as much as you're accusing that they are doing. And please don't cite the O'Keefe video. Your political bias is so strong you can't even read. Unlike you and your SJW crowd, I do not consider myself a truth bearer when things are unclear, so allow me to repeat myself: "He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them". See what I did there? I express my opinion without presenting it as an undeniable fact, maybe you could try that. That you say there is no "reasonable doubt" when there is no conviction probes how much you and your political camp believe in the important of due process or western values in general. Your reasoning on Trump's tape also highlight the deeper issue within some people that willingly blur the difference between words and actions for political gain. This isn't even political. You made a statement, I'm rebutting it. Your statement lacks evidence. My claim is that the law system will never accept the charges of slander against the women. Just as the same law system will never accept their charges against him without evidence. Why even have an opinion if contradictory evidence just makes you call me names and deflect onto SJWs. Christ. and yet the media machine were allowed to gobble it up and spew it out like vomit and didn't even hesitate about smearing it all over a president elect without a thought to whether or not it was actually true. That's not journalism. It's partisan war propaganda. Note that all these accusations did not surface until Trump, by his own factual words, admitted to sexually harassing women and then tried to deny the very words caught on tape as "baseless lockerroom talk". Its hardly partisan war propaganda when they are collaberating statements with Trump's own words caught on tape. That is the kind of shifting of goalposts that makes Gawker sized mistakes in judging what is in the public interest. The logic being used here is thus: Trump said this bad thing and everyone is saying that Trump said this bad thing, and it's really popular therefore these people saying trump did a bad thing to them years ago without evidence or pray tell a police rapport are totally not exaggerating or outright lying for attention / defamatory reasons / political reasons or any other sort of scam. We must devote hours of our time broadcasting this. This is the kind of smearing of feces that makes the national media in Norway look neutral. Why? Because they actually have to give both sides their say. "Trump denies allegations of sexual misconduct from several sources" is all the news there was and should have been.
It's almost like Trump kept saying at his rallies the stories were debunked (when they weren't) and trotted forward someone as evidence who is a notorious liar with a nonsense story, and that's what the media reported on. Maybe they should have just ignored his lies and nonsense excuses, that would have been more fair.
|
On November 18 2016 04:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Flynn is going to take over as NSA.
The Senate has also already unanimously confirmed Ted Cruz as Secretary of Honestly It Doesn't Matter Just Get Him Out Of This Chamber Now Please. 
|
On November 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 04:14 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Flynn is going to take over as NSA. The Senate has also already unanimously confirmed Ted Cruz as Secretary of Honestly It Doesn't Matter Just Get Him Out Of This Chamber Now Please.
Yeah, the party that the Capitol Hill GOP is going to throw when Cruz is gone is gonna be a sight to behold.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Not gonna lie, Flynn in a major national security role troubles me. He seems a little bit mentally unstable from what I've seen of him.
On a tangential note, I noticed how eerily similar Clinton's "Stronger together" was to the Remainers' "Stronger in" motto. Both lost in a world-shaking upset. I think that slogan is cursed.
|
On November 18 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Not gonna lie, Flynn in a major national security role troubles me. He seems a little bit mentally unstable from what I've seen of him.
On a tangential note, I noticed how eerily similar Clinton's "Stronger together" was to the Remainers' "Stronger in" motto. Both lost in a world-shaking upset. I think that slogan is cursed.
Do you think Trump is mentally unstable? You commented a lot on Hillary's flaws, but not her opponent's deeper flaws, it seemed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 18 2016 05:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Not gonna lie, Flynn in a major national security role troubles me. He seems a little bit mentally unstable from what I've seen of him.
On a tangential note, I noticed how eerily similar Clinton's "Stronger together" was to the Remainers' "Stronger in" motto. Both lost in a world-shaking upset. I think that slogan is cursed. Do you think Trump is mentally unstable? You commented a lot on Hillary's flaws, but not her opponent's deeper flaws, it seemed.
No, he doesn't seem mentally unstable, but I will in all fairness list some of his character flaws of note (I've done so in the past, albeit briefly). He is vain and easily influenced by both compliments and perceived insults. Could probably add "petty" to that list, though you'd easily get that from the other two. He lies a lot, to the point that the line between truth and fiction doesn't really exist for him. He's sort of a dunce on a lot of issues of political importance. But no, I don't think he's mentally unstable like Flynn, who strikes me as the kind of guy who would use nukes in a fit of sufficient rage.
|
On November 17 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:
Let's remember folks, Fox News is the most consumed television media in the US.
I caught the morning team earlier, they were covering Oxford Dictionary's word of the year "post-truth", they both said they had "never heard the term before", my breakfast came out of my nose.
|
Does anyone happen to know Trump's view on 9/11? I'm curious because the 28 pages were pretty damning, yet was completely overlooked because of the election. Any reasonable person would have been outraged, and I know if I were president-elect, I would be looking to get to the bottom of the issue once and for all. And as a bonus, I would probably get to watch Bush, Cheney, and other government officials be indicted for not only allowing the attacks to occur, but actively facilitating them. I know that's a random thing to ask about, but it is still pretty important to a lot of people. I haven't been able to find anything regarding his views on this topic anywhere.
I particularly like this explanation for being decently written (she needs an editor though) and not overly complicated for the average reader.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/larisa-alexandrovna-horton/the-28-pages-explained/10153728805622895/
|
David Petraeus – the former US army general and CIA director who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information – has entered the race to become Donald Trump’s secretary of state, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
Petraeus resigned in November 2012 after the FBI discovered he had had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and had shared classified information with her. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling the information. People who have seen him recently say he is anxious to return to public life and has privately refused to rule out serving in a Trump administration.
Petraeus, who was also a US commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has made flattering remarks about Trump since the election. “He’s right to criticise Washington over its partisanship and its inability to forge compromises,” he told the German cable news channel Deutsche Welle this week. “He’s a dealmaker. Let’s see if he can make some deals in Washington.”
He added: “This is an individual who is a political outsider. Perhaps he can do something in Washington that the political insiders, who he rightly criticises, have been unable to do, which is to come together to give a little, to gain a lot for our country.”
The favourite for the secretary of defence, according to diplomats who have been in touch with the Trump team in recent days, is Jeff Sessions, a rightwing, anti-immigration senator from Alabama who has been accused of making racist remarks.
But the battle for top national security and foreign policy jobs is still intense, and foreign governments are being warned a comprehensive announcement may not be made until after the Thanksgiving holiday on 24 November.
On Thursday, Trump’s team announced he had met Sessions at Trump Tower in New York the day before. “While nothing has been finalized and he is still talking with others as he forms his cabinet, the president-elect has been unbelievably impressed with Senator Sessions and his phenomenal record as Alabama’s attorney general and US attorney,” a spokesperson said. “It is no wonder the people of Alabama re-elected him without opposition.”
Earlier this week, the main contenders for secretary of state appeared to be former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, but Giuliani ran into significant opposition over his extensive lobbying ties with foreign governments, and Bolton’s fiercely held convictions on the strategic need to confront Russian expansionism are at odds with the views of Trump’s inner circle.
Source
|
On November 18 2016 06:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +David Petraeus – the former US army general and CIA director who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information – has entered the race to become Donald Trump’s secretary of state, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
Petraeus resigned in November 2012 after the FBI discovered he had had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and had shared classified information with her. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling the information. People who have seen him recently say he is anxious to return to public life and has privately refused to rule out serving in a Trump administration.
Petraeus, who was also a US commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has made flattering remarks about Trump since the election. “He’s right to criticise Washington over its partisanship and its inability to forge compromises,” he told the German cable news channel Deutsche Welle this week. “He’s a dealmaker. Let’s see if he can make some deals in Washington.”
He added: “This is an individual who is a political outsider. Perhaps he can do something in Washington that the political insiders, who he rightly criticises, have been unable to do, which is to come together to give a little, to gain a lot for our country.”
The favourite for the secretary of defence, according to diplomats who have been in touch with the Trump team in recent days, is Jeff Sessions, a rightwing, anti-immigration senator from Alabama who has been accused of making racist remarks.
But the battle for top national security and foreign policy jobs is still intense, and foreign governments are being warned a comprehensive announcement may not be made until after the Thanksgiving holiday on 24 November.
On Thursday, Trump’s team announced he had met Sessions at Trump Tower in New York the day before. “While nothing has been finalized and he is still talking with others as he forms his cabinet, the president-elect has been unbelievably impressed with Senator Sessions and his phenomenal record as Alabama’s attorney general and US attorney,” a spokesperson said. “It is no wonder the people of Alabama re-elected him without opposition.”
Earlier this week, the main contenders for secretary of state appeared to be former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, but Giuliani ran into significant opposition over his extensive lobbying ties with foreign governments, and Bolton’s fiercely held convictions on the strategic need to confront Russian expansionism are at odds with the views of Trump’s inner circle. Source
I know it's not that uncommon to float names with leaks like these, but I get the feeling Trump is going to "leak" lots of ideas and go with whatever's most popular for much of his presidency.
Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will meet with Donald Trump this weekend to discuss the secretary of state position, a source close to the president-elect with direct knowledge of his thinking told NBC News.
In March, the former Massachusetts governor called Trump "a phony" and "a fraud" when discussing the then-candidate. Trump, who endorsed Romney in 2012, has called him a loser, adding that Romney begged for his endorsement and "would've dropped to his knees" for it. He has also said that he "choked like a dog" during his 2012 presidential campaign against President Barack Obama.
During the primaries, Romney campaigned with Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the Buckeye State. Last week after the election, however, Romney called Trump to congratulate him on his surprise win.
Others reportedly under consideration for the secretary of state position include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Another possibility is Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, who told CNBC on Wednesday he's "in the mix" for the job.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well that just reminded me of the Trump-Romney matter. I guess Trump really did succeed where Romney failed. Whoulda thunk it.
|
This is like watching a swarm of squirrels descend on a freshly-filled bird feeder. I guess they're hoping Trump is really as mercurial and susceptible to flattery as the media says he is.
|
Bob Corker is the least worst choice for SoS of the candidates I've seen, but dear God, how am I even saying that.
|
On November 18 2016 06:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:Does anyone happen to know Trump's view on 9/11? I'm curious because the 28 pages were pretty damning, yet was completely overlooked because of the election. Any reasonable person would have been outraged, and I know if I were president-elect, I would be looking to get to the bottom of the issue once and for all. And as a bonus, I would probably get to watch Bush, Cheney, and other government officials be indicted for not only allowing the attacks to occur, but actively facilitating them. I know that's a random thing to ask about, but it is still pretty important to a lot of people. I haven't been able to find anything regarding his views on this topic anywhere. I particularly like this explanation for being decently written (she needs an editor though) and not overly complicated for the average reader. https://m.facebook.com/notes/larisa-alexandrovna-horton/the-28-pages-explained/10153728805622895/
He did say on the news either the day of or day after the attacks, that there was probably a bomb in the buildings that went off at the same time as the planes, because the WTC's steel was too tough for a plane to smash through. He was drawing on his building expertise to make this assertion. Clearly an assertion worthy of the highest of intellects.
|
On November 18 2016 06:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +David Petraeus – the former US army general and CIA director who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information – has entered the race to become Donald Trump’s secretary of state, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
Petraeus resigned in November 2012 after the FBI discovered he had had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and had shared classified information with her. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling the information. People who have seen him recently say he is anxious to return to public life and has privately refused to rule out serving in a Trump administration.
Petraeus, who was also a US commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has made flattering remarks about Trump since the election. “He’s right to criticise Washington over its partisanship and its inability to forge compromises,” he told the German cable news channel Deutsche Welle this week. “He’s a dealmaker. Let’s see if he can make some deals in Washington.”
He added: “This is an individual who is a political outsider. Perhaps he can do something in Washington that the political insiders, who he rightly criticises, have been unable to do, which is to come together to give a little, to gain a lot for our country.”
The favourite for the secretary of defence, according to diplomats who have been in touch with the Trump team in recent days, is Jeff Sessions, a rightwing, anti-immigration senator from Alabama who has been accused of making racist remarks.
But the battle for top national security and foreign policy jobs is still intense, and foreign governments are being warned a comprehensive announcement may not be made until after the Thanksgiving holiday on 24 November.
On Thursday, Trump’s team announced he had met Sessions at Trump Tower in New York the day before. “While nothing has been finalized and he is still talking with others as he forms his cabinet, the president-elect has been unbelievably impressed with Senator Sessions and his phenomenal record as Alabama’s attorney general and US attorney,” a spokesperson said. “It is no wonder the people of Alabama re-elected him without opposition.”
Earlier this week, the main contenders for secretary of state appeared to be former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, but Giuliani ran into significant opposition over his extensive lobbying ties with foreign governments, and Bolton’s fiercely held convictions on the strategic need to confront Russian expansionism are at odds with the views of Trump’s inner circle. Source
Wait. What? First he says he'll get a special prosecutor to throw Hillary in jail for the emails. Then he turns around and wants Petraeus in his cabinet, after that guy has actually already been convicted of leaking secret information?!
|
cabinet picks are still fairly speculative; as someone else said he may well be partially letting things leak so he can gauge the public's response to the various options.
if people make a stink about a possibility they may well not get it.
I'd wait until picks are actually announced before getting too up in arms about it; unless your goal is to use your response to the leak to pressure against that person.
|
On November 18 2016 06:44 farvacola wrote:
Bob Corker is the least worst choice for SoS of the candidates I've seen, but dear God, how am I even saying that.
i unironically and with complete seriousness said that cruz was the best AG pick i've heard of so far.
On November 18 2016 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 06:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:David Petraeus – the former US army general and CIA director who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information – has entered the race to become Donald Trump’s secretary of state, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
Petraeus resigned in November 2012 after the FBI discovered he had had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and had shared classified information with her. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling the information. People who have seen him recently say he is anxious to return to public life and has privately refused to rule out serving in a Trump administration.
Petraeus, who was also a US commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has made flattering remarks about Trump since the election. “He’s right to criticise Washington over its partisanship and its inability to forge compromises,” he told the German cable news channel Deutsche Welle this week. “He’s a dealmaker. Let’s see if he can make some deals in Washington.”
He added: “This is an individual who is a political outsider. Perhaps he can do something in Washington that the political insiders, who he rightly criticises, have been unable to do, which is to come together to give a little, to gain a lot for our country.”
The favourite for the secretary of defence, according to diplomats who have been in touch with the Trump team in recent days, is Jeff Sessions, a rightwing, anti-immigration senator from Alabama who has been accused of making racist remarks.
But the battle for top national security and foreign policy jobs is still intense, and foreign governments are being warned a comprehensive announcement may not be made until after the Thanksgiving holiday on 24 November.
On Thursday, Trump’s team announced he had met Sessions at Trump Tower in New York the day before. “While nothing has been finalized and he is still talking with others as he forms his cabinet, the president-elect has been unbelievably impressed with Senator Sessions and his phenomenal record as Alabama’s attorney general and US attorney,” a spokesperson said. “It is no wonder the people of Alabama re-elected him without opposition.”
Earlier this week, the main contenders for secretary of state appeared to be former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, but Giuliani ran into significant opposition over his extensive lobbying ties with foreign governments, and Bolton’s fiercely held convictions on the strategic need to confront Russian expansionism are at odds with the views of Trump’s inner circle. Source Wait. What? First he says he'll get a special prosecutor to throw Hillary in jail for the emails. Then he turns around and wants Petraeus in his cabinet, after that guy has actually already been convicted of leaking secret information?!
well petraeus has a penis so its okay and he totally already got punished anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
