A Lesson To Be Learned?

[Kathianne]

There's no way to avoid the glee that Hillary is not going to be President Clinton. There's also no way to avoid the conclusion that a large part of the reason she is not is because her party chose to ignore both current and past scandals and crimes from the candidate and those who served her.

I couldn't support Trump, for reasons listed too many times-beating a dead horse is an understatement. However he did win and I will give him a chance, as I would any president, (I hope. I'm finding that difficult to say since what if things get worse down the line?) I won't ignore things that he does well or things that are likely to come back and bite all of us in the rear.

Anyways, here is something a bit worrisome, IMO. Sometimes there's a lot to be learned from those one disagrees with on some issues. One can be a huge fan of a candidate or an elected official and still see mischief in the making, that can be the undoing of that favored person down the line. In a way, it will be a test whether those that really believe in the man-whether supporters and/or advisors are willing to tell him that this is a mistake along the Clinton Foundation lines:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/trumps-lawyer-his-kids-will-manage-his-business-holdings-in-a-blind-trust/

[Kathianne]

Speaking of 'giving him a chance' a voice of reason:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/11/barkley-on-trump-we-have-to-give-him-a-chance/


Barkley on Trump: ‘We have to give him a chance’POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON NOVEMBER 11, 2016 BY LARRY O'CONNOR
Is former NBA superstar Charles Barkley emerging as the voice of reason in the popular culture when it comes to post-election analysis?

Here are his remarks on TNT’s Inside the NBA and although he says he didn’t vote for Donald Trump, he thinks America needs to “give him a chance.” USA Today has the video here (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/charles-barkley-donald-trump-we-have-to-give-him-chance-nba-tnt).




“Well, Ernie. It’s been kind of shell-shock, to be honest with you, the last 48 hours with Mr. Trump becoming the president. I was in shock, I’m not gonna lie. I was totally surprised at the election results. That being said, we’ve got to move on. I was disappointed because my candidate didn’t win, number one. But like I said, it’s over now. He’s going to be the president of the United States. We’ve got to respect the office, and we have to give him a chance. That’s the bottom line.


“Somebody always loses an election. We’ve been fortunate that we’ve won the last couple with President Obama. We didn’t win this one. But like I said, I respect the office of the president of the United States, and we have to give him a chance. Everything he’s said in the past, that’s water under the bridge. We have to give him a chance, and we have to support him because he’s the president of the United States of America.”


You have to hand it to the “Round Mound of Rebound” as this short statement represents something that most other Clinton supporters haven’t quite been able to bring themselves to accept. Whether it’s Miley Cyrus (http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/09/miley-cyrus-crying-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/) or America Ferrera (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/america-ferrera-posts-tearful-message-on-post-election-grief_us_58248bc7e4b0e80b02ceffce) sobbing on their Instagram accounts, or even worse, Madonna and Mark Ruffalo (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/madonna-mark-ruffalo-t-join-nyc-anti-trump-protests-article-1.2867287) actually joining the <del style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">protesters</del> rioters in New York City Thursday night, representatives of America’s popular culture have shown themselves to be less that magnanimous in their reaction to the results of this week’s quadrennial exercise in Democratic Republicanism.


Maybe Barkley is in a better place to accept a loss because, despite his great talent, he was denied the NA championship during his storied career. In other words, he understands what it means to lose. It takes more character to accept a loss than it does to celebrate a win. Winning is easy.


But, in this era of “participation trophies” awarded to every young child playing Little League or soccer over the past two decades, America has raised a generation of young people who have no idea how to accept a loss. They should look to Barkley as a role model. Ironic, isn’t it?

[red states rule]

Well said Kat. Trump was not my first choice - I was a Scott Walker fan

But Trump is doing pretty damn good so far. Seeing him and Obama being respectful and smiling at each other was something to watch. Trump knows how to make deals and get what he wants. Lets hope he hits ball out of the park once again

I am watching MSNBC and the newest "scandal" is his Cabinet seems to too white and male. Where is the "diversity?"

[Kathianne]

Well said Kat. Trump was not my first choice - I was a Scott Walker fan

But Trump is doing pretty damn good so far. Seeing him and Obama being respectful and smiling at each other was something to watch. Trump knows how to make deals and get what he wants. Lets hope he hits ball out of the park once again

I am watching MSNBC and the newest "scandal" is his Cabinet seems to too white and male. Where is the "diversity?"

I'll applaud when he rescinds all or most of Obama's executive orders. Those are going to send serious hurt on folks that didn't understand the differences between EO and legislation, but needs to be done.

OTOH, this blind trust is a serious joke and ripe for pay to play. The question on the table, will his supporters, staff, lawyers give him the advice to avoid being Clinton like? Or will they turn into what they despise and ignore the problems in the making?

[red states rule]

I'll applaud when he rescinds all or most of Obama's executive orders. Those are going to send serious hurt on folks that didn't understand the differences between EO and legislation, but needs to be done.

OTOH, this blind trust is a serious joke and ripe for pay to play. The question on the table, will his supporters, staff, lawyers give him the advice to avoid being Clinton like? Or will they turn into what they despise and ignore the problems in the making?


I agree with the blind trust. He needs to do much more the a blind trust

My opinion (for what its worth) Newt for Chief of Staff. Rudy or Pam Bondi for AG. Ben Carson for Surgeon General. and put Kelly Ann Conway as his #1 adviser who knows what he knows. She got him to the finish line and I think she can keep his ego and temper in check

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well said Kat. Trump was not my first choice - I was a Scott Walker fan

But Trump is doing pretty damn good so far. Seeing him and Obama being respectful and smiling at each other was something to watch. Trump knows how to make deals and get what he wants. Lets hope he hits ball out of the park once again

I am watching MSNBC and the newest "scandal" is his Cabinet seems to too white and male. Where is the "diversity?"

Too white, eh???
Since when is getting the best and brightest in ones administration based upon skin color.
Wouldn't that be racist to do??
Sure it would be , but as always, being racist to promote blacks over any other race is perfectly ok according to these self-appointed guardians of race equality and fairness..

These asshats lose, then they want to be given power to pick his cabinet for him--was such power granted by obama to the Republicans/conservatives when his sorry ass took the throne? Was such power called for by the dem controlled, slavish media??
No sir,the obama put in the most left-wing hardcore radicals and scum that he could get to serve under his dictatorial reign and do his bidding!
And was praised by these same vermin crying how Trump should now do as they say..
FFK THEM,THEY ARE VERMIN.... ..-TYR

[red states rule]

Too white, eh???
Since when is getting the best and brightest in ones administration based upon skin color.
Wouldn't that be racist to do??
Sure it would be , but as always, being racist to promote blacks over any other race is perfectly ok according to these self-appointed guardians of race equality and fairness..

These asshats lose, then they want to be given power to pick his cabinet for him--was such power granted by obama to the Republicans/conservatives when his sorry ass took the throne? Was such power called for by the dem controlled, slavish media??
No sir,the obama put in the most left-wing hardcore radicals and scum that he could get to serve under his dictatorial reign and do his bidding!
And was praised by these same vermin crying how Trump should now do as they say..
FFK THEM,THEY ARE VERMIN.... ..-TYR


That is DNCTV

To white. No women, Muslims, or minorities

For some reason libs are the ones who are obsessed with race while they accuse Republicans of being racist

[jimnyc]

I'll applaud when he rescinds all or most of Obama's executive orders. Those are going to send serious hurt on folks that didn't understand the differences between EO and legislation, but needs to be done.

OTOH, this blind trust is a serious joke and ripe for pay to play. The question on the table, will his supporters, staff, lawyers give him the advice to avoid being Clinton like? Or will they turn into what they despise and ignore the problems in the making?

I certainly hope there are no issues with his kids taking this over. But what is the alternative? They were already running the business with him, so that will continue. I'm not sure the issue would be any different with a 'blind' party, as his business and the kids running it would still remain the same. With that said, I CLEARLY see the problem and fully understand. Me saying I trust his kids doesn't cut it. But at the same time, I don't think he could force them out and have someone run the company either. I think what needs to be done - is to keep things of that nature under a microscope and ensure he doesn't perform any of that. I really don't see it happening, but fully understand the concern. But if me and my business, and this being my kids, I keep them in charge as well. Maybe have an independent auditor involved somehow too?

Assange I have mixed emotions about. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fully enjoy his emails coming out! But like the article says, do we absolve criminal liability because he harmed a political opponent?

[red states rule]

I certainly hope there are no issues with his kids taking this over. But what is the alternative? They were already running the business with him, so that will continue. I'm not sure the issue would be any different with a 'blind' party, as his business and the kids running it would still remain the same. With that said, I CLEARLY see the problem and fully understand. Me saying I trust his kids doesn't cut it. But at the same time, I don't think he could force them out and have someone run the company either. I think what needs to be done - is to keep things of that nature under a microscope and ensure he doesn't perform any of that. I really don't see it happening, but fully understand the concern. But if me and my business, and this being my kids, I keep them in charge as well. Maybe have an independent auditor involved somehow too?

Assange I have mixed emotions about. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fully enjoy his emails coming out! But like the article says, do we absolve criminal liability because he harmed a political opponent?


He can find a very good trust attorney, or law firm to oversee the company. I do not think it can be that hard. If an attorney can oversee an estate they can oversee President Elect Trump's company.

Am I wrong here?

[NightTrain]

Assange I have mixed emotions about. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fully enjoy his emails coming out! But like the article says, do we absolve criminal liability because he harmed a political opponent?


Conflicting thoughts here regarding Assange, as well.

On one hand, his steady leaks of inside info were devastating as they illuminated the corruption within the Clinton machine. This gained Trump untold numbers of voters.

He also gave us Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's head, and if nothing more than this, he deserves gratitude from the bottom of my heart.

Assange exposed CNN's giving the debate questions to Clinton, which is a very serious breach of ethics and forever will CNN be tainted by that. Yeah, they threw the hapless Brazile under the bus, but they knew what was going on. All you had to do was look at their front page on any given day, skim the headlines and know who they were in the bag for. Sure, most of us political junkies suspected what was going on, but it's very rewarding to be proven right by hard evidence.


On the other hand....

I am positive he would have gleefully wrecked Trump as well, had he been given the chance. The difference is that Trump isn't a career criminal with a pattern of corruption spanning decades - and Trump didn't have morons running the IT department.

That being said, I don't want our national security compromised in the future by Assange. And he most certainly will, the very next time he gets his hands on US Government documents with no regard to personnel safety in hostile areas.


If he promised to limit his international releases to exposing corruption wherever it may be, and not releasing life-threatening intel, I'd be on board with a policy of Live and Let Live.

[Kathianne]

I certainly hope there are no issues with his kids taking this over. But what is the alternative? They were already running the business with him, so that will continue. I'm not sure the issue would be any different with a 'blind' party, as his business and the kids running it would still remain the same. With that said, I CLEARLY see the problem and fully understand. Me saying I trust his kids doesn't cut it. But at the same time, I don't think he could force them out and have someone run the company either. I think what needs to be done - is to keep things of that nature under a microscope and ensure he doesn't perform any of that. I really don't see it happening, but fully understand the concern. But if me and my business, and this being my kids, I keep them in charge as well. Maybe have an independent auditor involved somehow too?

Assange I have mixed emotions about. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fully enjoy his emails coming out! But like the article says, do we absolve criminal liability because he harmed a political opponent?

I've no doubt you all know more about the family and their business interests than I. My understanding though from listening during the convention was that they all have their own companies and serve on staff of his 'Trump Corp.' In any case at all, the blind trust is to keep any knowledge of the business from the person serving the public, certainly pertains to President. To think 'his kids' are going to keep information from him? That's no different than Hillary's promises to keep the Foundation out of her State interests. That didn't work, as we all know.

Again, the best folks to point this out are those close to him and supporting him. You KNOW the media isn't going to let him be Teflon.

[jimnyc]

I've no doubt you all know more about the family and their business interests than I. My understanding though from listening during the convention was that they all have their own companies and serve on staff of his 'Trump Corp.' In any case at all, the blind trust is to keep any knowledge of the business from the person serving the public, certainly pertains to President. To think 'his kids' are going to keep information from him? That's no different than Hillary's promises to keep the Foundation out of her State interests. That didn't work, as we all know.

Again, the best folks to point this out are those close to him and supporting him. You KNOW the media isn't going to let him be Teflon.

But if the Trump kids are directly employed at his organization, and already run several things, I really don't know what the alternative is. They should certainly be able to continue their careers. As for what they tell him, that's a sticky one. Even if there were 10 blind folks in charge, the kids would still be working there, and I think Donald would still kinda know what would make his business interests more successful regardless. I don't know the answers, but I do think this situation is different than prior presidents. It's rare that one takes office, leaves such a massive business behind & has several children that were helping operate the business, still operate the business.

But he'll be out in the open. I can't imagine him using an executive order to do something that may directly help his business. Outside of that, we'll see most things coming from congress. With how famous his business is, I can't imagine it not being out in the open should something be politically done that would be purposely done in order to help his business interests.

I also don't think Trump will have any interest whatsoever in pay to play crap. That's why a lot of folks voted for him. I think he's financially secure, as are his children, and I don't see him doing such.

The only way for 'sure' that I can think of making everyone happy in all of this, would be for the kids to all be away from the Trump organization, and that's not realistic or fair.

[Kathianne]

But if the Trump kids are directly employed at his organization, and already run several things, I really don't know what the alternative is. They should certainly be able to continue their careers. As for what they tell him, that's a sticky one. Even if there were 10 blind folks in charge, the kids would still be working there, and I think Donald would still kinda know what would make his business interests more successful regardless. I don't know the answers, but I do think this situation is different than prior presidents. It's rare that one takes office, leaves such a massive business behind & has several children that were helping operate the business, still operate the business.

But he'll be out in the open. I can't imagine him using an executive order to do something that may directly help his business. Outside of that, we'll see most things coming from congress. With how famous his business is, I can't imagine it not being out in the open should something be politically done that would be purposely done in order to help his business interests.

I also don't think Trump will have any interest whatsoever in pay to play crap. That's why a lot of folks voted for him. I think he's financially secure, as are his children, and I don't see him doing such.

The only way for 'sure' that I can think of making everyone happy in all of this, would be for the kids to all be away from the Trump organization, and that's not realistic or fair.


Well as pointed out in the article from the OP, it may not be illegal. However just want to remind everyone that when it's done 'by your guy' it's likely to be followed, by someone you don't care to give that leeway to.

Ask how the Republicans are feeling about being 'fair' regarding the filibuster? If they don't pull that trigger regarding SCOTUS they are worse than all of you thought.

I hope you're right about the EO, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing more of them. Then again, I'm cynical about all of them, I just wasn't so much so about 'We the People.' That definitely hurt.

[jimnyc]

Well as pointed out in the article from the OP, it may not be illegal. However just want to remind everyone that when it's done 'by your guy' it's likely to be followed, by someone you don't care to give that leeway to.

Ask how the Republicans are feeling about being 'fair' regarding the filibuster? If they don't pull that trigger regarding SCOTUS they are worse than all of you thought.

I hope you're right about the EO, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing more of them. Then again, I'm cynical about all of them, I just wasn't so much so about 'We the People.' That definitely hurt.

I'm not going to condemn for wrongdoing until some sort of wrongdoing is actually done. I wouldn't expect a democrat to have their kids leave their careers either, so it's not about my guy. Not having kids drop their careers and be unemployed sounds like common sense to me. Have some authority perhaps help overlook things, but not having them still running the company and still performing their jobs would be silly.

Again, what's the alternative? Would you really expect all of his children to end their careers early and walk away from the business?

[Kathianne]

I'm not going to condemn for wrongdoing until some sort of wrongdoing is actually done. I wouldn't expect a democrat to have their kids leave their careers either, so it's not about my guy. Not having kids drop their careers and be unemployed sounds like common sense to me. Have some authority perhaps help overlook things, but not having them still running the company and still performing their jobs would be silly.

Again, what's the alternative? Would you really expect all of his children to end their careers early and walk away from the business?

Now I have no idea what you are referring to about the kids having to leave their jobs? Having trustees handling all the inside information on the company-the one Trump is involved with-would not leave his kids without jobs, incomes, or anything else. I'm seriously confused.

[jimnyc]

Now I have no idea what you are referring to about the kids having to leave their jobs? Having trustees handling all the inside information on the company-the one Trump is involved with-would not leave his kids without jobs, incomes, or anything else. I'm seriously confused.

You were wondering and skeptical that his kids wouldn't tell him information. You even wrote - To think 'his kids' are going to keep information from him?

You can hire God himself - but if the kids are still running things in their current positions, I don't see how it would be any different. What Trump is involved in IS what his kids do. Even with a trustee, they would be involved in the daily day to day business and all the numbers, that's what they do.

Ivanka doesn't run things, but I would think the executive VP of acquisitions would have a LOT of information. Eric Trump is another executive VP in the organization. Donald Jr, also an executive VP. These kids will and should have information and numbers from within the organization at many levels, that's their jobs.

With them working there, and performing their duties, I don't see how they wouldn't have information, and how folks would be satisfied that they would 'keep information from him'. Short of them not working there, they will have access to the business interests. Again, even having a trustee involved, they would still be performing their jobs and still running numbers and still knowing the buildings and income and all that other jazz.

[Kathianne]

You were wondering and skeptical that his kids wouldn't tell him information. You even wrote - To think 'his kids' are going to keep information from him?

You can hire God himself - but if the kids are still running things in their current positions, I don't see how it would be any different. What Trump is involved in IS what his kids do. Even with a trustee, they would be involved in the daily day to day business and all the numbers, that's what they do.

Ivanka doesn't run things, but I would think the executive VP of acquisitions would have a LOT of information. Eric Trump is another executive VP in the organization. Donald Jr, also an executive VP. These kids will and should have information and numbers from within the organization at many levels, that's their jobs.

With them working there, and performing their duties, I don't see how they wouldn't have information, and how folks would be satisfied that they would 'keep information from him'. Short of them not working there, they will have access to the business interests. Again, even having a trustee involved, they would still be performing their jobs and still running numbers and still knowing the buildings and income and all that other jazz.

He could set up a truly 'blind trust' where non-involved people are the ones that know what's where and where investments and such are. I'm not a lawyer and not playing one.

However, his kids do not make the trust blind.

There will be much made of this, when there is no reason. It's the price of his choosing to run and win.

His kids would still be able to work there, draw their salaries, hire/fire, etc. They also of course would totally control their own businesses.

[jimnyc]

He could set up a truly 'blind trust' where non-involved people are the ones that know what's where and where investments and such are. I'm not a lawyer and not playing one.

However, his kids do not make the trust blind.

There will be much made of this, when there is no reason. It's the price of his choosing to run and win.

His kids would still be able to work there, draw their salaries, hire/fire, etc. They also of course would totally control their own businesses.

Part of their business IS running the organization and the numbers. So then what, a demotion is expected? They should be able to continue their careers EXACTLY as they did prior to the election. They wouldn't be able to effectively operate such a company without access to information and numbers. It would be difficult if not impossible for executive VP's to run acquisitions and such, without knowing the bottom lines.

Either way, I'm not worrying about it or any 'lessons'. I have no issue with the kids continuing to do their jobs. No matter who in the world would be running the company, I'm confident that Trump will know exactly what would help his company and his bottom dollar. I'll worry about things when and if there were actually something to worry about.

[revelarts]

As far as the kids are concerned it seems to me that one way to handle it might be that all of Trumps holdings are withheld from certain transactions for the course of the presidency, transactions that have federal/gov't connections or influence such as foreign investments. And they have to be completely transparent in others new ventures. It would allow them to run it but If they did doing anything it'd be in the light.
Also Like his proposals for lobbyist and congressmen, Trumps biz would not be able to do biz with the gov't for 5-7-10 years AFTER he leaves office.
If he's willing to put the same kind of restrictions on himself as he's proposing for others that sets a great example. If not congressmen can balk at any proposed restrictions on their future employment and businesses.

there's already laws on the books for congress NOT to be into any insider trading, by congress and family. That should apply to the executive as well if it doesn't already.

The kids should be able to work around those restrictions ... after all the father only had a SMALL LOAN of ONE MILLION dollars when he started. Seems to me the kids should be able to make a multi million dollar biz work for them. If not they're just LOSERS.

[jimnyc]

As far as the kids are concerned it seems to me that one way to handle it might be that all of Trumps holdings are withheld from certain transactions for the course of the presidency, transactions that have federal/gov't connections or influence such as foreign investments. And they have to be completely transparent in others new ventures. It would allow them to run it but If they did doing anything it'd be in the light.
Also Like his proposals for lobbyist and congressmen, Trumps biz would not be able to do biz with the gov't for 5-7-10 years AFTER he leaves office.
If he's willing to put the same kind of restrictions on himself as he's proposing for others that sets a great example. If not congressmen can balk at any proposed restrictions on their future employment and businesses.

there's already laws on the books for congress NOT to be into any insider trading, by congress and family. That should apply to the executive as well if it doesn't already.

The kids should be able to work around those restrictions ... after all the father only had a SMALL LOAN of ONE MILLION dollars when he started. Seems to me the kids should be able to make a multi million dollar biz work for them. If not they're just LOSERS.

The kids are all worth over 150 million +. And in order to make the business work for them - they will need to continue to do their jobs the same way they have been doing thus far. I have no problem with certain transactions being limited, that makes sense to me. I also have no problem with things being 100% transparent to a trustee or similar.

Of COURSE there are laws against things - but jesus, how about we wait till there's even a HINT of wrongdoing...

Chelsea and Bill & Hillary were affiliated with their foundation the entire time she was a secretary of state. I had no issue with that at all - until wrongdoing came about. But I surely didn't expect Bill or Chelsea to quit while she was in office. I don't recall others instantly jumping on the family and foundation and such the day after she took the position of secretary.

[jimnyc]

If not they're just LOSERS.

Oh, I saw a lot of losers out of this election, but Trump and his family certainly weren't any of them, even though many claimed they would. It's not going to be surprising in the slightest when folks start trying to find every little negative thing they can about him and/or his family.

#WINNING!

[revelarts]

Well said Kat. Trump was not my first choice - I was a Scott Walker fan
But Trump is doing pretty damn good so far. Seeing him and Obama being respectful and smiling at each other was something to watch. Trump knows how to make deals and get what he wants. Lets hope he hits ball out of the park once again
I am watching MSNBC and the newest "scandal" is his Cabinet seems to too white and male. Where is the "diversity?"



My opinion (for what its worth) Newt for Chief of Staff. Rudy or Pam Bondi for AG. Ben Carson for Surgeon General. and put Kelly Ann Conway as his #1 adviser who knows what he knows. She got him to the finish line and I think she can keep his ego and temper in check

I'm fine with Ben Carson anywhere. and I don't know Kelly Ann Conway.

But Newt Gingrich has been a globalist neo-con. he was part of making NAFTA happen and pro IRAQ war and soft on civil liberties. He says he's changed a bit. But I'm sorry, why SHOULD we trust these same old politicians to do something different than what they've done if they get into seats of power again? If they DON"T do what the they say NOW they'll just make up excuses more WHY they couldn't. I'm fine with newt being brought in to advise from time to time on strategy and pit falls and details of the working of the gov't he's a pro in that respet. I just don't trust him with the reigns of any dept to follow through on serious nationalist constitutional changes.


White Males Psssfft, who cares. it'd be nice for some symboloy but I don't want token whites, vets, women, blacks, muslims, latinos, jews or disabled. I think Trump has made clear his thought there. If he doesn't really want them their it will just LOOK staged like a bad reality TV show. And he'll get flax for that as well. He's NOT going to be able to please some people no matter what he does. So he should Just do the job.

And if anyone here is looking for EVERYONE on the left to stop hat in' if Trump shows normal human compassion and reason then well your crazy. But If you want something to moan for the next 4 years , ok yeah you'll have that.

But i hope you'll alway notice several on the left already reaching out and commenting on giving him a chance and respecting him as president.
I suspect it's more than some here gave Obama.

And Many here are Upset if Obama If he praises the troops, or if he doesn't, if he sends the troops or if he doesn't, if he takes a vacation or not.
It'd take me a while to find people on this board with a good word about Obama.
So to rail against some on the left who'll be doing the same to Trump for the next 4 years is kinda weird.

you know what they say "Haters gonna Hate" But i don't think ether is losing sleep over people like that.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12744/production/_92388557_obamaaaa.jpg

[Black Diamond]

I'm fine with Ben Carson anywhere. and I don't know Kelly Ann Conway.

But Newt Gingrich has been a globalist neo-con. he was part of making NAFTA happen and pro IRAQ war and soft on civil liberties. He says he's changed a bit. But I'm sorry, why SHOULD we trust these same old politicians to do something different than what they've done if they get into seats of power again? If they DON"T do what the they say NOW they'll just make up excuses more WHY they couldn't. I'm fine with newt being brought in to advise from time to time on strategy and pit falls and details of the working of the gov't he's a pro in that respet. I just don't trust him with the reigns of any dept to follow through on serious nationalist constitutional changes.


White Males Psssfft, who cares. it'd be nice for some symboloy but I don't want token whites, vets, women, blacks, muslims, latinos, jews or disabled. I think Trump has made clear his thought there. If he doesn't really want them their it will just LOOK staged like a bad reality TV show. And he'll get flax for that as well. He's NOT going to be able to please some people no matter what he does. So he should Just do the job.

And if anyone here is looking for EVERYONE on the left to stop hat in' if Trump shows normal human compassion and reason then well your crazy. But If you want something to moan for the next 4 years , ok yeah you'll have that.

But i hope you'll alway notice several on the left already reaching out and commenting on giving him a chance and respecting him as president.
I suspect it's more than some here gave Obama.

And Many here are Upset if Obama If he praises the troops, or if he doesn't, if he sends the troops or if he doesn't, if he takes a vacation or not.
It'd take me a while to find people on this board with a good word about Obama.
So to rail against some on the left who'll be doing the same to Trump for the next 4 years is kinda weird.

you know what they say "Haters gonna Hate" But i don't think ether is losing sleep over people like that.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12744/production/_92388557_obamaaaa.jpg

The speech Obama gave after Trump won was excellent.

[Kathianne]

Returning to the OP, though the other conversations were good, this seems related:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-reportedly-seeking-top-secret-security-clearance-for-his-kids-2016-11-14


Trump reportedly seeking top-secret security clearance for his kids


Unusual situation could create conflicts of interest

President-elect Donald Trump is said to be seeking top-secret security clearances for three of his children and his son-in-law.


CBS Corp.’s CBS, +1.94% (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/cbs?mod=MW_story_quote) CBS News reported Monday that Trump has sought clearances for his daughter Ivanka, sons Eric and Donald Jr., and son-in-law Jarred Kushner. While they would not be allowed to hold jobs in his administration due to nepotism laws, they could be granted clearance if they were to be designated as national security advisers. Each would have to fill out a questionnaire and undergo a background check.


All four are currently on Trump’s transition team, and none have any experience in government.


Trump’s children will apparently also be running the Trump business, which could create conflicts of interest with their possible roles as presidential advisers.



<iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/2/marketwatch.com/economy_story_2" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/2/marketwatch.com/economy_story_2" width="1" height="1" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; background: 0px 0px; width: 1px !important; height: 1px !important;"></iframe>

CBS’s report did not specify what level of clearance is being sought. A low-level security clearance could merely grant them access to the West Wing of the White House. A higher clearance would be needed to access the Situation Room.

[OCA]

Returning to the OP, though the other conversations were good, this seems related:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-reportedly-seeking-top-secret-security-clearance-for-his-kids-2016-11-14





Nepotism at it's finest. After power is successfully centralized into the executive he can declare a new American monarchy.

[Kathianne]

It's not about giving family jobs, if it were, I'd be with Jim in his assessment. This isn't about 'rewarding the faithful,' spoils is normal-this isn't that.

One thing the wikileaks uncovered, there were people around that warned that the email system, the $ from speeches and in kind, the Foundation needed to be reined in or they were going to blow up during the election. Guess what? They did.

While Clinton blames the 'right wing conspiracy, I guess now headed by Comey instead of Starr, she lost because of hew own actions and failure to correct when needed.

[OCA]

It's not about giving family jobs, if it were, I'd be with Jim in his assessment. This isn't about 'rewarding the faithful,' spoils is normal-this isn't that.

One thing the wikileaks uncovered, there were people around that warned that the email system, the $ from speeches and in kind, the Foundation needed to be reined in or they were going to blow up during the election. Guess what? They did.

While Clinton blames the 'right wing conspiracy, I guess now headed by Comey instead of Starr, she lost because of hew own actions and failure to correct when needed.

Then, pray tell, why would they need clearances? And i thought this was about Trump's kids and getting clearances, how does Hillary fit in? I don't remember any clearances being sought after for Chelsea.

[Kathianne]

Then, pray tell, why would they need clearances? And i thought this was about Trump's kids and getting clearances, how does Hillary fit in? I don't remember any clearances being sought after for Chelsea.

If you don't follow what I wrote, I can't help you. Perhaps you should stick to the Cage, where you are a 'winner.'

[OCA]

If you don't follow what I wrote, I can't help you. Perhaps you should stick to the Cage, where you are a 'winner.'

It had little to do with it unless in some convoluted way youvwere inferring Trump personal business and government business might become intertwined which is a certainty at some point.

Haaaah blame me for your vague post, it's ok, big shoulders, i can carry your weight too.

I will, post wherever i please, thank you.

[NightTrain]

I will, post wherever i please, thank you.


Your posts reside where staff decides they do, little man.

Tread lightly.

[fj1200]

He can find a very good trust attorney, or law firm to oversee the company. I do not think it can be that hard. If an attorney can oversee an estate they can oversee President Elect Trump's company.

Am I wrong here?

Yes. There is a huge difference between an active real estate/business portfolio than liquidating an estate.


But if the Trump kids are directly employed at his organization, and already run several things, I really don't know what the alternative is. They should certainly be able to continue their careers. As for what they tell him, that's a sticky one. Even if there were 10 blind folks in charge, the kids would still be working there, and I think Donald would still kinda know what would make his business interests more successful regardless. I don't know the answers, but I do think this situation is different than prior presidents. It's rare that one takes office, leaves such a massive business behind & has several children that were helping operate the business, still operate the business.

IIRC Cheney had to, or just did, put in place some rather sophisticated financial mechanisms in place to separate any influence he may wield from his Halliburton stake. Much easier with a public company than a private one though.

[Kathianne]

Yes. There is a huge difference between an active real estate/business portfolio than liquidating an estate.



IIRC Cheney had to, or just did, put in place some rather sophisticated financial mechanisms in place to separate any influence he may wield from his Halliburton stake. Much easier with a public company than a private one though.

We're not the only ones 'wondering.' :

​http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-ethics/

[Kathianne]

Looks like they are NOT going for the security clearances on the kids:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/low-level-staffer-requested-security-clearances-trumps-kids/story?id=43564888


Low-Level Staffer Requested Security Clearances for Trump's Kids: Sources

By ABC NEWS



Nov 15, 2016, 8:39 PM ET


The Trump transition team is saying that a low-level staffer requested security clearances for three of Donald Trump (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/donald-trump.htm)'s children, according to a top aide.


According to the aide, the request was made "without authorization" and the staffer, who is no longer with the team, "overstepped his boundaries."


Sources say the request was not made by the president-elect.

...