Trump refuses to provide proof salary donated as promised

[Chiropteran]

Also, it's pretty funny that you would declare CNN as 'fake news' and then link to them when they say something you like. Thanks for so transparently showing that your standard for the accuracy of news is if it tells you what you want to hear.

CNN is fake news, yet nearly always fake in favor of clinton. The fact that even CNN is pointing out all the money made by the Clinton family due to public office should be a real eye opener.

I'm not the one who made up "Clinton News Network", it's been an ongoing joke for years.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

CNN is fake news, yet nearly always fake in favor of clinton. The fact that even CNN is pointing out all the money made by the Clinton family due to public office should be a real eye opener.

I'm not the one who made up "Clinton News Network", it's been an ongoing joke for years.

but fox news is real, right?

 

[fskimospy]

First of all that is false. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state while making many of her paid speeches.

It is false that Hillary Clinton made paid speeches while acting as Secretary of State. If you believe otherwise please provide a link.

Second of all, how is that even relevant? I thought the argument was that using the presidential position to make personal wealth was unethical. It doesn't matter if you make the speeches after your term is up, the fact is those speeches only paid what they did because of his former presidential position, he absolutely used his public office to enrich himself.

Of course it matters. That means when someone is paying you you're no longer in a position to make public policy on their behalf. It's why if someone gives you money to help pass legislation when you're a private citizen it's called lobbying and when someone gives you money to help pass legislation when you're in public office it's called bribery, a felony.

 

[fskimospy]

CNN is fake news, yet nearly always fake in favor of clinton. The fact that even CNN is pointing out all the money made by the Clinton family due to public office should be a real eye opener.

I'm not the one who made up "Clinton News Network", it's been an ongoing joke for years.

Right, so it's 'fake news' to you but as soon as CNN publishes something that tells you what you want to hear you deem it credible enough to link to. This is called motivated reasoning.

It's perfect circular reasoning:
1) When CNN says something you don't like - 'CNN is only saying this because it is biased against conservatives. CNN isn't credible and it's all a lie!'
2) When CNN says something you DO like - 'If a source as biased as CNN is saying it it must be true so now CNN is credible!'

The idea that CNN is biased is taken on faith and so no contrary information can disprove it. This is deeply irrational.

 

[brycejones]

CNN is fake news, yet nearly always fake in favor of clinton. The fact that even CNN is pointing out all the money made by the Clinton family due to public office should be a real eye opener.

I'm not the one who made up "Clinton News Network", it's been an ongoing joke for years.

lol I think you actually believe this which just makes you a more pathetic individual.

 

[Chiropteran]

It is false that Hillary Clinton made paid speeches while acting as Secretary of State. If you believe otherwise please provide a link.

You are confirmed idiot. Hillary even shrugged it off, claiming that all secretaries of state do it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-hillary-says-every-secretary-of-state-205259379.html

And it's not just speeches, this shows a pattern of similar behaqvior:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-many-donors-to-clinton-foundation-met-with-her-at-state/

Of course it matters. That means when someone is paying you you're no longer in a position to make public policy on their behalf. It's why if someone gives you money to help pass legislation when you're a private citizen it's called lobbying and when someone gives you money to help pass legislation when you're in public office it's called bribery, a felony.

I'm amazed you are trying to make this argument. It's really fantastically bad, coming from you.

So it's fine to bribe a secretary of state, but it's not okay to use a hotel that bears the presidents name, because he might own a portion of it and profit from the usage? I'd like to first point out that is a vast difference between pay for a product or services vs an outright bribe (aka, donation in Clinton-speak).

Second of all, virtually everybody was so positive Hillary was going to be elected. So is your stance that it's perfectly A-OK to bribe a president as long as those bribes occur before the election is finalized, even if you think the election is fixed and your paid-for candidate is a sure thing? You have some very flaky ethics if you think that is perfectly fine, but keeping an interest in a family business you owned for decades is dishonest.

 

[Chiropteran]

Right, so it's 'fake news' to you but as soon as CNN publishes something that tells you what you want to hear you deem it credible enough to link to. This is called motivated reasoning.

It's perfect circular reasoning:
1) When CNN says something you don't like - 'CNN is only saying this because it is biased against conservatives. CNN isn't credible and it's all a lie!'
2) When CNN says something you DO like - 'If a source as biased as CNN is saying it it must be true so now CNN is credible!'

The idea that CNN is biased is taken on faith and so no contrary information can disprove it. This is deeply irrational.

I'm sorry you can't handle a logical argument.

Whether I think CNN is fake or not is immaterial. If you think it's a valid source, then I can use it in my points against you, period.

 

[Chiropteran]

but fox news is real, right?

Is that your opinion?

 

[fskimospy]

You are confirmed idiot. Hillary even shrugged it off, claiming that all secretaries of state do it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-hillary-says-every-secretary-of-state-205259379.html

And it's not just speeches, this shows a pattern of similar behaqvior:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-many-donors-to-clinton-foundation-met-with-her-at-state/

You are a confirmed idiot. Those speeches came AFTER her tenure as Secretary of State, not during. This is the second time you've owned yourself. lol.

At least have the courage to admit you were wrong. This is getting embarrassing.

I'm amazed you are trying to make this argument. It's really fantastically bad, coming from you.

So it's fine to bribe a secretary of state, but it's not okay to use a hotel that bears the presidents name, because he might own a portion of it and profit from the usage? I'd like to first point out that is a vast difference between pay for a product or services vs an outright bribe (aka, donation in Clinton-speak).

Second of all, virtually everybody was so positive Hillary was going to be elected. So is your stance that it's perfectly A-OK to bribe a president as long as those bribes occur before the election is finalized, even if you think the election is fixed and your paid-for candidate is a sure thing? You have some very flaky ethics if you think that is perfectly fine, but keeping an interest in a family business you owned for decades is dishonest.

It's not at all fine to bribe a secretary of state and bribery is still illegal even if it took place before someone took office. If you are able to show that Clinton promised policy favors in exchange for money I'd love to see it. I am certain you won't be able to do this either, but as we've shown above you are incredibly easily duped. I can't believe this stuff even needs to be explained to someone.

As far as Trump's hotel goes this is exactly why it's an ethical violation. Regardless of whether or not Trump's decisions are actually affected, the fact that foreign diplomats and other interest groups shifted their accommodations and functions to Trump's hotel after his election clearly shows they view it as a potential source of policy favors. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. To relieve himself of these conflicts Trump explicitly stated he was going to separate himself from his business, but this was yet another lie.

 

[Exterous]

I imagine the primary difference is that the presidency is so vastly more powerful than a congressional seat and it's so much more visible. Nobody knows who most individual congressmen are and so it's hard to get worked up off of what some guy from Montana is doing who you don't know. Everyone knows who the president is and his ability to influence public policy to his financial advantage are almost limitless. In all I think it's half publicity and half scale of corruption.

Vastly more powerful might be a bit much when it comes to making money off of business deals and investments. For example he won't have as much access as some Congressmen have in regards to regulatory investigations\hearings. More visible? Certainly.

Some changes have already been made for Congress (STOCK Act, for example)

Thats what I was referring to in regards to the spouse and children comment. Its like many products that come out of Congress - meant to sound useful and appeal to people who can't be bothered to read but riddled with caveats or exceedingly narrow scope so they can keep doing what they've been doing. It only applies to officially pending legislation and to elected members and staffers. Want to make changes based on generally known to pass legislation that isn't officially proposed? Go right ahead. (Hell, markets move based on proposed legislation so you don't even need to know it will pass) Got some inside information from a hearing? No problem at all. Uh oh - pending legislation restriction got you down? If you've followed our Loophole 101 tips you already structured your accounts\trusts so you can just pass that hot tip along to your spouse or children and reap the benefits!

No sign that our elected leaders have gotten any less suspiciously lucky with their investment choices.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry you can't handle a logical argument.

Whether I think CNN is fake or not is immaterial. If you think it's a valid source, then I can use it in my points against you, period.

I think one of us is certainly struggling with logic here, yes. It seems that you're trying to apply quantum physics to the idea of source citation, which is certainly a novel argument, haha! By your logic CNN is a valid source when you quote it to me because I think it's a valid source but if I quote the exact same thing back to you it's no longer valid because you don't like CNN, meaning CNN in your mind is simultaneously a valid and invalid source. Schrodinger's CNN Article! That's pretty funny.

Either CNN is a credible source or it is not. If you don't think it is, don't link to it. Instead of course you do the standard dodge where you find it credible whenever it suits you instead of approaching the issue logically. This is because you aren't actually interested in what the article has to say outside of whether or not it confirms what you already think. (you aren't even good at that because you've repeatedly failed to understand your own links)

 

[Chiropteran]

You are a confirmed idiot. Those speeches came AFTER her tenure as Secretary of State, not during. This is the second time you've owned yourself. lol.

At least have the courage to admit you were wrong. This is getting embarrassing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...y-at-hillary-clintons-state-department-115468

Here are even more.

I'm going to laugh so hard if you try to claim it doesn't count when Bill does a paid speech. As if Bill & Hillary are less connected than Trump and his children.

It's not at all fine to bribe a secretary of state and bribery is still illegal even if it took place before someone took office. If you are able to show that Clinton promised policy favors in exchange for money I'd love to see it.

Why? You have zero proof whatsoever that Trump has taken any bribes, but you are perfectly fine with speculation. Why do you insist on proof when it comes to Clinton but not for Trump?

As far as Trump's hotel goes this is exactly why it's an ethical violation. Regardless of whether or not Trump's decisions are actually affected, the fact that foreign diplomats and other interest groups shifted their accommodations and functions to Trump's hotel after his election clearly shows they view it as a potential source of policy favors. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. To relieve himself of these conflicts Trump explicitly stated he was going to separate himself from his business, but this was yet another lie.

"Otherwise they wouldn't do it. "

Sorry, just because you are too stupid to see the other reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lets be consistent, okay?

If you are able to show that Trump promised policy favors in exchange for hotel preferences (a laughable idea at every possible level), I'd love to see it. If you don't have proof, please and kindly STFU.

 

[Chiropteran]

I think one of us is certainly struggling with logic here, yes. It seems that you're trying to apply quantum physics to the idea of source citation, which is certainly a novel argument, haha! By your logic CNN is a valid source when you quote it to me because I think it's a valid source but if I quote the exact same thing back to you it's no longer valid because you don't like CNN, meaning CNN in your mind is simultaneously a valid and invalid source. Schrodinger's CNN Article! That's pretty funny.

Either CNN is a credible source or it is not. If you don't think it is, don't link to it. Instead of course you do the standard dodge where you find it credible whenever it suits you instead of approaching the issue logically. This is because you aren't actually interested in what the article has to say outside of whether or not it confirms what you already think. (you aren't even good at that because you've repeatedly failed to understand your own links)

You don't get it. If you are using CNN as a reliable and fine source for your argument, then I can use it to prove you wrong.

Why?

Either CNN is valid, in which case the source I provided proves you wrong.

or

CNN is indeed fake news, and while that makes my usage pointless, you are already wrong by default because you also used CNN.

 

[brandonbull]

You don't get it. If you are using CNN as a reliable and fine source for your argument, then I can use it to prove you wrong.

Why?

Either CNN is valid, in which case the source I provided proves you wrong.

or

CNN is indeed fake news, and while that makes my usage pointless, you are already wrong by default because you also used CNN.

Now you are just being racist.

 

[fskimospy]

Vastly more powerful might be a bit much when it comes to making money off of business deals and investments. For example he won't have as much access as some Congressmen have in regards to regulatory investigations\hearings. More visible? Certainly.

He won't have as much access in regards to regulatory hearings but he will have way more access in controlling who actually writes the regulations. I know which one I would choose.

Thats what I was referring to in regards to the spouse and children comment. Its like many products that come out of Congress - meant to sound useful and appeal to people who can't be bothered to read but riddled with caveats or exceedingly narrow scope so they can keep doing what they've been doing. It only applies to officially pending legislation and to elected members and staffers. Want to make changes based on generally known to pass legislation that isn't officially proposed? Go right ahead. (Hell, markets move based on proposed legislation so you don't even need to know it will pass) Got some inside information from a hearing? No problem at all. Uh oh - pending legislation restriction got you down? If you've followed our Loophole 101 tips you already structured your accounts\trusts so you can just pass that hot tip along to your spouse or children and reap the benefits!

No sign that our elected leaders have gotten any less suspiciously lucky with their investment choices.

While I certainly agree that the STOCK Act isn't great, it's still a step in the right direction. If I'm not mistaken Tom Price may end up going down specifically because of the disclosures mandated by the STOCK Act, for example.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...y-at-hillary-clintons-state-department-115468

Here are even more.

I'm going to laugh so hard if you try to claim it doesn't count when Bill does a paid speech. As if Bill & Hillary are less connected than Trump and his children.

So to be clear you're saying that if a public official's spouse is employed that is corruption? This is truly baffling.

As for Trump and his children you're just exposing your ignorance. The Trump Organization is wholly owned by Donald Trump. His children are employees, not the beneficiaries. They don't own it, he does.

Why? You have zero proof whatsoever that Trump has taken any bribes, but you are perfectly fine with speculation. Why do you insist on proof when it comes to Clinton but not for Trump?

You're the one that said they had 100% factual evidence of this, lol. I've always been clear that there isn't hard evidence. (yet!) Do you not even remember your own posts?

"Otherwise they wouldn't do it. "

Sorry, just because you are too stupid to see the other reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lets be consistent, okay?

If you are able to show that Trump promised policy favors in exchange for hotel preferences (a laughable idea at every possible level), I'd love to see it. If you don't have proof, please and kindly STFU.

By all means tell us stupid people what those other reasons are.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't get it. If you are using CNN as a reliable and fine source for your argument, then I can use it to prove you wrong.

Why?

Either CNN is valid, in which case the source I provided proves you wrong.

or

CNN is indeed fake news, and while that makes my usage pointless, you are already wrong by default because you also used CNN.

I never used CNN as a source for my argument, genius. You did. Even better, it said the opposite of what you claimed but you were too dumb to notice.

Please keep going, this is getting funnier and funnier.

 

[Chiropteran]

So to be clear you're saying that if a public official's spouse is employed that is corruption? This is truly baffling.

This is all kind of meaningless anyway as the issue is whether he has actually separated himself from his business or not. He obviously has not.

So. Bill and Hillary, legally married, but apparently in your opinion that makes them separated. While Trump, who passed control over entirely to his children, is *not* separated from his businesses.

You just make shit up every time you post, and you don't even care one bit about contradicting yourself.

 

[Chiropteran]

I never used CNN as a source for my argument, genius. You did. Even better, it said the opposite of what you claimed but you were too dumb to notice.

Please keep going, this is getting funnier and funnier.

What is your source then?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That wasn't actually his paycheck...it was a forged copy of Obama's birth certificate retrieved from a mayonnaise jar kept on Funk and Wagnalls' porch!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Is that your opinion?

no

 

[Chiropteran]

You're the one that said they had 100% factual evidence of this, lol. I've always been clear that there isn't hard evidence. (yet!) Do you not even remember your own posts?

You are either lying out of your teeth or you don't even have a basic fundamental grasp of the English language.

I said it's 100% proven that the Clintons have made millions directly due to public office. I never used the word bribe.

 

[fskimospy]

So. Bill and Hillary, legally married, but apparently in your opinion that makes them separated. While Trump, who passed control over entirely to his children, is *not* separated from his businesses.

You just make shit up every time you post, and you don't even care one bit about contradicting yourself.

Dude, how hard is this to understand? If you think I contradicted myself then you're no better at reading my posts than you are at reading your own news articles.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are married, meaning that they pool assets to some degree, yes. If you view Bill Clinton being employed as the same thing as Hillary Clinton being employed that means you think every public official with a working spouse is being bribed. This is clearly a silly interpretation. The Trump Organization on the other hand is not owned by anyone else. Not Trump's kids, not Trump's wife, it is owned by Donald Trump alone. The fact that his kids are running it means exactly as much to ownership as the fact that your local McDonalds has a manager. Does the local McDonalds manager own the store?

If Hillary Clinton had been getting paid thousands of dollars to make speeches while she was serving as secretary of state I would absolutely consider that evidence of corruption. She didn't. Trump on the other hand is clearly profiting from being president while in office. That is at a minimum a grave ethical breach but I find it reasonably likely that by the time he leaves office it will be more than that.

 

[fskimospy]

You are either lying out of your teeth or you don't even have a basic fundamental grasp of the English language.

I said it's 100% proven that the Clintons have made millions directly due to public office. I never used the word bribe.

This is what you said:

You are the one that was calling Trump's dealings "corruption" I had to assume you meant that making money from public office was corruption, because that is the only fucking thing being discussed that is even remotely similar to corruption. So I ask you: where was that line of thinking when Clinton did it, which is 100% known and verified, not just a lot of guesses, assumptions, and conjecture?

Either you made up your own definition of corruption where people making money after they've been in office somehow counts or you lied about the Clintons. Either you're stupid or you're a liar. Maybe both, but either way you have totally shit your pants in this thread.

 

[Chiropteran]

Dude, how hard is this to understand? If you think I contradicted myself then you're no better at reading my posts than you are at reading your own news articles.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are married, meaning that they pool assets to some degree, yes. If you view Bill Clinton being employed as the same thing as Hillary Clinton being employed that means you think every public official with a working spouse is being bribed.

No. That is YOUR stance. I don't have a problem with Trump nor any other president or elected official who has a prior or concurrent business.

I am asking if you hold the same stance towards the Clintons, or if it's some sort of selective bias.

Quit projecting your idiotic stance onto me.