logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Trump "trumping" everyone/"everyone", yet again?
akaCG
post Dec 1 2016, 01:57 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Pretty much everyone who's been following Trump transition news/developments/etc. with above average regularity is likely aware of the following sequence of events:

November 19:
Trump and Romney have high profile meeting.

Yesterday evening (i.e. 11 days later):
Trump and Romney have high profile dinner.

This morning (i.e., roughly, 9 hours after said high profile dinner):
Via a series of Tweets, Trump announces:"I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses. Hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. The Presidency is a far more important task!"


At some point early today, I began thinking something along the lines of:

Scenario A:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he didn't want it, yesterday's high profile dinner wouldn't have happened.

Scenario B:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he accepted it, yesterday's dinner would have been followed up pretty quickly by a Trump announcement to that effect this morning (most likely, via Twitter, natch).

In other words, ... I'm beginning to think that what Trump and Romney have been discussing is NOT the Secretary of State position. Rather, I'm beginning to think that what they have been discussing are matters relating to the December 15 news conference that Trump announced via Twitter this morning.

So, without further ado, ...

Debate questions:

1. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a good thing, because ...

2. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a bad thing, because ...



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 1 2016, 02:34 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 30 2016, 09:57 PM) *
Pretty much everyone who's been following Trump transition news/developments/etc. with above average regularity is likely aware of the following sequence of events:

November 19:
Trump and Romney have high profile meeting.

Yesterday evening (i.e. 11 days later):
Trump and Romney have high profile dinner.

This morning (i.e., roughly, 9 hours after said high profile dinner):
Via a series of Tweets, Trump announces:"I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses. Hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. The Presidency is a far more important task!"


At some point early today, I began thinking something along the lines of:

Scenario A:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he didn't want it, yesterday's high profile dinner wouldn't have happened.

Scenario B:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he accepted it, yesterday's dinner would have been followed up pretty quickly by a Trump announcement to that effect this morning (most likely, via Twitter, natch).

In other words, ... I'm beginning to think that what Trump and Romney have been discussing is NOT the Secretary of State position. Rather, I'm beginning to think that what they have been discussing are matters relating to the December 15 news conference that Trump announced via Twitter this morning.

So, without further ado, ...

Debate questions:

1. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a good thing, because ...

2. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a bad thing, because ...



Interesting idea. If Trump gave family and/or friends oversight there would still be some conflict of interest.
But if he handed the oversight to Romney...heh.
After all that Romney said about him, at the ith hour, it would be hard to make the case that Romney is in Trump's pocket.
I don't see any downsides here.
If this is the plan, Trump is a lot smarter than I thought he was and I have underestimated him (or he's at least listening to smart people, which is a good sign).

But my hunch is...you're out to lunch here, akaCG.
smile.gif

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 1 2016, 02:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Dec 1 2016, 04:25 PM
Post #3


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2016, 09:34 AM) *
...
After all that Romney said about him, at the ith hour, it would be hard to make the case that Romney is in Trump's pocket.
...

Precisely.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2016, 09:34 AM) *
...
I don't see any downsides here.
...

Nor do I.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2016, 09:34 AM) *
...
But my hunch is...you're out to lunch here, akaCG.
smile.gif

But, like most of my lunches, I'm really enjoying having it. smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Dec 1 2016, 04:50 PM
Post #4


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 30 2016, 08:57 PM) *
Pretty much everyone who's been following Trump transition news/developments/etc. with above average regularity is likely aware of the following sequence of events:

November 19:
Trump and Romney have high profile meeting.

Yesterday evening (i.e. 11 days later):
Trump and Romney have high profile dinner.

This morning (i.e., roughly, 9 hours after said high profile dinner):
Via a series of Tweets, Trump announces:"I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses. Hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. The Presidency is a far more important task!"


At some point early today, I began thinking something along the lines of:

Scenario A:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he didn't want it, yesterday's high profile dinner wouldn't have happened.

Scenario B:
If Trump and Romney met on Nov 19 to discuss the Secretary of State position, and if Romney had asked for some time to consider it, and if Romney had decided during the ensuing 11 days that he accepted it, yesterday's dinner would have been followed up pretty quickly by a Trump announcement to that effect this morning (most likely, via Twitter, natch).

In other words, ... I'm beginning to think that what Trump and Romney have been discussing is NOT the Secretary of State position. Rather, I'm beginning to think that what they have been discussing are matters relating to the December 15 news conference that Trump announced via Twitter this morning.

So, without further ado, ...

Debate questions:

1. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a good thing, because ...

2. Romney in the role of trustee overseeing the Trump businesses in order to prevent and/or resolve any conflicts of interest would be a bad thing, because ...


Or....Trump is talking to Romney about SoS AND getting his input on what to do about his business, which doesn't necessarily include Romney actively engaged in running it.

But I still keep hearing other names mentioned as top SoS contenders. I'm thinking Akacg might have something here. Trump would certainly want somebody very good at running businesses running his businesses, and Romney is certainly that. As MrsP pointed out, it could hardly be said that Romney is just a Trump stooge.

I think another thing should be mentioned that doesn't get mentioned nearly enough. Trump isn't stupid. Almost everything he does he does for a reason, and those things mostly seem to work out for him. Would putting Romney in charge of his businesses work out for him? Yes, it would.

Plus, I can think of more checkboxes beside 'Why would Romney make the best trust advisor?' than I can for 'Why would Romney make the best SoS.' Not that he wouldn't be good, but so would lots of people. Not so many people to fill the trust advisor role that wouldn't raise concerns about why they were picked, and whether there would truly be separation.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Dec 1 2016, 08:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Dec 1 2016, 10:40 PM
Post #5


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 1 2016, 11:50 AM) *
...
Plus, I can think of more checkboxes beside 'Why would Romney make the best trust advisor?' than I can for 'Why would Romney make the best SoS.' Not that he wouldn't be good, but so would lots of people. Not so many people to fill the trust advisor role that wouldn't raise concerns about why they were picked, and whether there would truly be separation.

Agree with the above.

The question that keeps bugging me, however, is: What would be in it for Romney?

It couldn't be the money. Whatever trustee salary he'd get paid (and it would need to be minuscule enough to preemptively neuter any attempts at characterizing Romney as a "sell out") would be peanuts to someone as wealthy as he is.

So Donald "Art of the Deal" Trump would have to sell Romney on some other aspect that would resonate with him.

I'm thinking/mulling that something along the lines of "For the good of the country, like when you stepped in to save the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, sir" might just work.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Dec 6 2016, 06:34 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Dec 1 2016, 05:40 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 1 2016, 11:50 AM) *
...
Plus, I can think of more checkboxes beside 'Why would Romney make the best trust advisor?' than I can for 'Why would Romney make the best SoS.' Not that he wouldn't be good, but so would lots of people. Not so many people to fill the trust advisor role that wouldn't raise concerns about why they were picked, and whether there would truly be separation.

Agree with the above.

The question that keeps bugging me, however, is: What would be in it for Romney?

It couldn't be the money. Whatever trustee salary he'd get paid (and it would need to be minuscule enough to preemptively neuter any attempts at characterizing Romney as a "sell out") would be peanuts to someone as wealthy as he is.

So Donald "Art of the Deal" Trump would have to sell Romney on some other aspect that would resonate with him.

I'm thinking/mulling that something along the lines of "For the good of the country, like when you stepped in to save the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, sir" might just work.


Yes, as you say, it wouldn't (couldn't, even) be financial. I do think it would be the route you suggested. There couldn't even be any other carrots, or the problem of it actually being run separate would come around again.

Romney isn't being mentioned as one of the leading candidates for SoS anymore...so your grassy knoll theory is looking more like what the situation might be. Romney wasn't mentioned for Sec of Treas, so what else does that leave? Possibly some advisor role in the Trump admin, but he has plenty of those people. I'm going to say I think your scenario is what the announcement will be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 16 2016, 05:53 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Cough.
Well....December 15th has come and gone.
Think I called this one right. It was an interesting theory though.

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Dec 16 2016, 06:04 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 16 2016, 12:53 PM) *
Cough.
Well....December 15th has come and gone.
Think I called this one right. It was an interesting theory though.

smile.gif


Yes, and I don't know that we know the end of it. Were the meetings with Romney just about the SoS position? That isn't known. Has Trump declared what is happening with his businesses (been busy past few weeks, but assuming that would have hit the news if had)? So, I think the theory is still in play, although probably looking less likely as time passes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 20th, 2018 - 01:23 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.