First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Secretary of State
41651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7 days ago , edited 7 days ago
Between those two?
Neither of them.
If I had to opt for one I would say Romney just because he dissented Trump openly. I don't agree with him by any means politically but he did roast Trump.
runec 
28280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7 days ago
He's actually considering Petraeus now too. So, months of harping on his opponent for mishandling classified information and now he's considering a guy that literally took classified files home, left them in his desk then shared them? You know, the guy that actually was charged and convicted of mishandling and divulging classified information?

>.>

Posted 7 days ago
oh that's rich, all of a sudden mishandling classified information is once again a big deal?
37377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7 days ago

pansyforyourthoughts wrote:

I can't say I like either of them.

As a born and (mostly) raised New Yorker, though, I despise Giuliani. So I guess I'd say Romney. But I don't know if it's wise to go with a Secretary of State who refused to endorse you, and kind of seems to hate you. I feel like it's a job where a low level of animosity between him and the President would be for the best.


As long as it's not Romney, nor any other who would attempt to muddle Trump's foreign policy aims, I'll be happy. I seriously DO NOT TRUST Romney. Bottom line.
37377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7 days ago

runec wrote:

He's actually considering Petraeus now too. So, months of harping on his opponent for mishandling classified information and now he's considering a guy that literally took classified files home, left them in his desk then shared them? You know, the guy that actually was charged and convicted of mishandling and divulging classified information?

>.>



What's wrong with Patraeus? Hillary was considering appointing him to her cabinet, too, if she'd won. So, now that it's Trump, suddenly Patraeus is a bad choice?

I happen to think anyone Hillary considered appointing to her cabinet is a bad choice for Trump. If Patreaus does make it into his cabinet, I hope they assign him an aid that will pick up after him, and put classified materials away properly. If Patreaus doesn't have the discipline to do that himself, he needs a baby sitter, better yet, he shouldn't be considered at all.
runec 
28280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7 days ago

DeadlyOats wrote:
What's wrong with Patraeus? Hillary was considering appointing him to her cabinet, too, if she'd won. So, now that it's Trump, suddenly Patraeus is a bad choice?


When was she considering Petraeus? Also, Petraeus would have been an even worse choice for Clinton given the email thing.



DeadlyOats wrote:
If Patreaus does make it into his cabinet, I hope they assign him an aid that will pick up after him, and put classified materials away properly. If Patreaus doesn't have the discipline to do that himself, he needs a baby sitter, better yet, he shouldn't be considered at all.


Petraeus leaked classified information to a woman he was having an affair with. So its a step past just poorly securing classified information. Petraeus was charged and convicted with mishandling classified information. He's damaged goods to both Clinton and Trump.

If Trump appoints him it looks hypocritical given his unceasing attacks on Clinton. If Clinton appointed him the political attacks would just write themselves.


37377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7 days ago , edited 7 days ago

runec wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
What's wrong with Patraeus? Hillary was considering appointing him to her cabinet, too, if she'd won. So, now that it's Trump, suddenly Patraeus is a bad choice?


When was she considering Petraeus? Also, Petraeus would have been an even worse choice for Clinton given the email thing.



DeadlyOats wrote:
If Patreaus does make it into his cabinet, I hope they assign him an aid that will pick up after him, and put classified materials away properly. If Patreaus doesn't have the discipline to do that himself, he needs a baby sitter, better yet, he shouldn't be considered at all.


Petraeus leaked classified information to a woman he was having an affair with. So its a step past just poorly securing classified information. Petraeus was charged and convicted with mishandling classified information. He's damaged goods to both Clinton and Trump.

If Trump appoints him it looks hypocritical given his unceasing attacks on Clinton. If Clinton appointed him the political attacks would just write themselves.




http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-to-meet-david-petraeus-experts-227881

It was something related to this article, or another article on this subject, that lead to speculation that she was considering him. My mistake.

Yet, the fact that she met with him, and other notables, during her campaign makes it clear that she didn't take Patraeus' indiscretion into account when she met with him. So, it's plausible that she would have chosen him for a spot on her team.

But that doesn't make it fact that she considered him for her team, so, I'll take it back.


Precisely why I'm flabbergasted that he still works in Washington, and no Democrat or Republican are making a stink out of it.

None of those materials were suppose to be in her house. Not in physical form, like Patreaus did, nor in digital form, like she did. Even if Patreaus had not shown the docs to that floozy, he still would have been breaking the law, just for taking it to his house, like she did.

I cannot disagree.
runec 
28280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7 days ago , edited 7 days ago

DeadlyOats wrote:
I cannot disagree.


Yeah, given the tone and topics of the election cycle it would have been a bad move for Clinton and it's an even worse move for Trump.

Granted, he's still miles ahead of Giuliani as an option.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.