So appointing a lot of self dealing specialists with a long list of insider credentials isn't a start that matches the rhetoric. Yes, if all of these people do the exact opposite of their track record and all turn over a new leaf all of a sudden, then the swamp will have been drained. Do you have evidence to show why you are hopeful that would happen?
What record of government corruption and self dealing do any of these people have? Make stuff up much?
Well we can start at the top. Trump has record of carrying out fraud, defaulting on loans, not living up to agreements promised on loans, paying off govt. officials to not pursue legal action against him, taking credit for other people's business plans etc. We can talk about Mnuchin being part of a lawsuit for pocketing profits over the Bernie Madoff scandal. We can talk about his exit from the Hollywood company Relativity Media, we can talk about his chairmanship at OneWest Bank, and their foreclosure policies during the real estate crash and faulty loan practices. We can talk about how he personally profited from it. Falsely accuse people of making stuff up much?
Yes, you hate Trump. I get it. I am not a big fan myself. But as hard as it may be for you to accept, the election is over now. Trump is going to be the President and he is likely to do a lot of things that you do not like. However, this thread is not about Trump, it is about his appointees. You appear to believe that they are corrupt and will promote and enable corruption and self dealing. Maybe they will. I certainly would not rule it out. But until they take office and start doing things that establish this sort of a record, it cannot be honestly said that they are necessarily going to. None of them has any record or a reputation as a government employee for corrupt or self-dealing. Trump said he would "hire the best people". On who those people are, surely you and Trump will disagree. Surely you and I will disagree. What we don't need is a bunch of no-record, "Politically Correct" appointees, who meet all of the left's preferred "Identity Politics" criteria but who have no record of SUCCESS at anything in particular and who have no history of implementing an agenda that results in growth and substantial, constructive change. People who have an impressive record of SUCCESS will generally have some battle scars and some failures along the way. That is totally fine with me. In fact, anyone who does not have these sorts of experiences is not a good pick in my view. Apparently you disagree. Without these sorts of experiences, what do they bring to the job other than naive fantasies and childish dreams? Certainly not any record of actual SUCCESS that would lead one to believe they can effectively bring about the change that is needed in a way that actually works. Maybe these people will turn out to be corrupt. It is too soon to say. You and your comrades are venting. I get it. Carry on and get back with me and everyone else when the actual corruption and self-dealing begins, which it very well might. Until then, I will read your over-the-top whinging as a lingering reaction to an election result that you are not pleased with.
Just get use to Trump getting torn apart at every chance. He brought it upon himself with his campaign rhetoric and his hypocrisy after getting elected. Putting a Goldman Sachs on his administration as secretary of treasury.... lololol come on.
I expect to do some of the tearing apart of Trump myself. But you guys are are positively unhinged. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to pick your battles and not just lash out at virtually every single thing he does, regardless of what it is, and then start making up or promoting "Fake News" stories about it.
They hire the best financial talent on Earth. They really do. So if you want the best finance executives and some of the brightest minds in any field, Goldman Sachs is a guaranteed place to be able to locate talent like that. There may well be other reasons, but this reason cannot responsibly be overlooked.
Completely unhinged? Hyperbole aside, you come off as a Trump supporter and I would love for to show me where you have posted a single article against Trump. No fake news needed to show where Trump is being dishonest or hypocritical, you just feel silly you support that type of candidate.
I did what you asked. I showed how his appointment was part of the insiders that used their misdeeds and corruption to profit. You asked, and I gave.
Drain the swamp means different thing to different people. Clearly, mojo think it's to rid of dealing and corruption. Other think it's to not tap 'the establishment'. Who know what Trump mean - he's never clear on anything on purpose (because he probably doesn't know himself). But what we have seen so far is that it's anything but anti-establishment. It's more likely business as usual. But I see it as not just busn as usual, but Trump business which to me mean illogical, weird, strange, nutty, crazy, unethical, corruption, anti-laws, don't give a damn about a few segment of the population, underhand dealing... yea, all of the worse things possible with Trump. But we'll see. Hopefully I'm 90% wrong (can't be 100% since he's already stepping on the 1st amendment and have some kind of promise with at least a single company).
As opposed to....someone far less qualified? Who knows more about economics and finance and business than someone from Goldman Sachs, or somewhere similar? This is an example of the constant criticizing of anything Trump does that Mojoman was talking about. Several here criticizing that without even grasping that, by default, they are arguing he should put in someone far less capable. Why on earth do we want someone far less capable in any cabinet position, but particularly something as important as Sec. of Treasury?
The criticism of Trump doing it is that he said it was time for outsiders, ran an add that portrayed Goldman Sachs as being responsible for the problems in the country, bashed Goldman Sachs repeatedly on the campaign trail as being part of the "elite establishment" that was suppressing "we the people", etc. He used the infowars and alt-right messaging and they regularly trash Obama and Clinton for their Goldman Sachs ties. He then turned around and picked those same elites to hold the same jobs in his admin. He scammed those types of voters. The "drain the swamp" folks who believe in infowars and believe that there is a corporate elite cabal running this country that rallied behind him thinking he would bust it up were scammed.
So you have forgotten Trump's campaign and crooked Hillary and her conflicts of interest and being bought and paid for?
The campaign tactics of both Trump and Clinton were absolutely despicable. That campaign was a straight up embarrassment to our country. They both both demonstrated themselves to be pathological liars. This is who Trump apparently is. So anytime he tells the truth about anything, I will be counting that as a pleasant and an unexpected surprise. Of course there are some posters around here that are such knee-jerk partisan hacks that they will actually try to condemn one of these two while defending the other. But any honest and thoughtful person will tell you without hesitation that they were both a disgrace. So if you are waiting for me to defend Trump as a person, or to pretend that I took anything he said on the campaign trail seriously, you are wasting your time. At this point, I am evaluating Trump's decisions and actions one by one, against my own standards of what is best for our country. Based on what I witnessed during the campaign, I am very surprised about how well he is doing so far. I did not expect this. Certainly his campaign left no reason for me to.
Trump is being critized for doing exactly what he campaigned against. President or not, he's a liar and an ignorant buffoon. None of that changed because he won an election. Some of you are acting like the election morphed him into a competent, sober respectable statesman.
Talked to a lobbyist today that threw some cold water on my hunch. He thinks it has to be Romney. But he is an inside-the-beltway guy, so he might be applying regular DC logic instead of loopy Trump logic.
What part of Trump's campaign? He harped on her for not releasing the transcripts of her speech to them...as he should have. Because the feeling was that she was telling them very different things than she was saying publicly. So, that's not relevant here.So, what other part are you referring to?
