Can you elaborate on that? As a general rule of thumb I outright reject bogeyman arguments or arguments that make the opposing argument seem like the only correction argument, absent any rational reasoning behind it. I think it would benefit the skeptics if you were to do that.
Can you elaborate on that? As a general rule of thumb I outright reject bogeyman arguments or arguments that make the opposing argument seem like the only correction argument, absent any rational reasoning behind it. I think it would benefit the skeptics if you were to do that.
Wow, that's even trickier considering that we are talking about huge and very expensive real estate that doesn't have a "set price". Stuff like that generally takes a long time to sell especially since we are talking about all of his holdings. Does he have to fire sale it so he gets boned on the price or what if someone offers him well above market price, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest as well?
Further he would likely never be able to recoup those kinds of holdings so I'm not sure how I feel about forcing a person completely out of their line of work effectively on a permanent basis. A lawyer can go right back to practicing law when they leave office, same with just about any other career. Are Senators expected to do the same thing? What about rental property?
If you read eski's post below my post, I was incorrect. The assets would be transferred entirely to the blind trust, which would then be divested and reinvested. Trump would not handle the sale of assets in the OGE proposals.
A man as wealthy as Trump, how much actual profit could those diplomats possibly be putting into Trump's pockets after all overhead is accounted for? A few hundred dollars, maybe a thousand or two at most, I have a hard time believing that will influence someone of that kind of wealth. They could just as easily hand him the money directly in secret.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,042
- 12,650
- 136
Even so, the sale which includes the purchaser and the price would be public knowledge. Could you imagine the uproar if, even through the blind trust, someone associated with Putin/Russia purchased one of his properties.
No, what you're advocating is essentially congress just deciding on a whim to toss out the results of the election for a reason that has no basis in law. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that approach, screw the checks and balances and all that crap, the president is just there at the pleasure of congress and can be removed at any time for any reason. If you don't see a problem with that, then you are obviously so blinded by hatred of Trump that you can't think logically anymore.
Actually, congress simply stepping in an impeaching a president and convicting him of a "crime" without any basis in law is very much a situation where the scotus would be expected to step in and make sure congress doesn't wipe out the executive branch and bring it under their control. You might be "very sure", but I assure you we won't find out because (fortunately) most members of congress are not batsh*t insane enough to try to overturn the will of the voters based on no legal basis whatsoever.
Yeah, because context and all that nonsense doesn't matter. Just pick a part of a post, then misrepresent what was meant and go with that.
And again, on queue, misrepresent my position and go from there. You have an uncanny knack of proving my points correct! The point is, the end does not justify the means. If the law doesn't say he has to divest, and the public voted him into office anyway, then he will be in office and won't have to divest, no matter what crazy impeachment nonsense you dream up.
When I suggested it might take some time to ponder your unenviable situation, even I didn't think it would make more than a day.
Seems a rather unfair standard when the arbiter of realistic and substantial appears to be you.
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 25,701
- 12,022
- 136
Oh so you believe this fantasy, that he's so rich (0 proof) that he can't be corrupted. Hey, I got this real estate deal that can't loose....
Corruption is a concern, yes. But even more basic than that is "conflict of interest". A reasonable person will certainly ask whether or not money/profit to Trump's company influenced a decision made.
I should point out also that there was a Supreme Court decision in 2016 talking about a judge's refusal to recuse (basically disqualify) himself from a case because he had advocated for it as a DA. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court said he should have. Same principle as conflict of interest, although it's couched in more legalese terms of impartiality and bias.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481433854/supreme-court-overturns-death-sentence-in-judge-recusal-case
I should point out also that there was a Supreme Court decision in 2016 talking about a judge's refusal to recuse (basically disqualify) himself from a case because he had advocated for it as a DA. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court said he should have. Same principle as conflict of interest, although it's couched in more legalese terms of impartiality and bias.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481433854/supreme-court-overturns-death-sentence-in-judge-recusal-case
The potential conflict of interest issues and possible corruption are real, but I'm surprised we reached crazy 'impeach him!' talk so quickly.
Apparently, lessons from the election were not learned. It's crying wolf all over again, just like when we were told he was basically Hitler. Now we're talking about impeaching him, which of course will go nowhere. Then, when he actually does something awful, there will be an outcry and it will be ignored because everyone already heard the calls for impeachment before he's even president. <shakes head>
Apparently, lessons from the election were not learned. It's crying wolf all over again, just like when we were told he was basically Hitler. Now we're talking about impeaching him, which of course will go nowhere. Then, when he actually does something awful, there will be an outcry and it will be ignored because everyone already heard the calls for impeachment before he's even president. <shakes head>
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
There's only one party that can ignore any corruption and give him a pass, hint: (it's not the democrats).
At least according to trump, just paying him some compliment is reason enough to change his public opinion of the complimenter. So it only stands to reason that merely preferring this businesses over others is likely good enough for more.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
It's a stupid idea for a number of reasons.
Here's another:
A super quick google seemed to show Trump has 7 hotels he owns. (Many others just license his name.)
I looked up one and it has over a 1,000 rooms for rent.
365 day in a year. So Trump would be 'selling' over 2.5 million hotel rooms per year. (7 hotels x 1,000 rooms x 365 days per year) Over the many decades Trump has had hotels god only knows the number of people who've rented from him.
I cannot take seriously the claim that any individual who rented a hotel room from Trump gets special treatment. You rented a Trump hotel room this year? Good luck to you and the other 2,499,999 people who did this year.
Crazy shit going on with the left these days.
Fern
By 'the left' do you mean basically every government ethicist there is, including those from every previous president from both parties?
Also before you asked for evidence of conflicts of interest and when presented with them moved the goalposts and then never answered. Did you just not care about the fact that so many exist?
The denial of reality from you is getting really bad these days.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Well I'd be interested in your answer as that is a pretty egregious conflict of interest.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
You're the one here claiming rental of hotel room is a bribe and influences Trump and I'm the one lacking reality?
Yeah, OK.
I'll add thinking that divestiture would work and is do-able is also completing lacking in reality. The proponents are functionally clueless and demonstrate zero practical experience/knowledge of such matters.
Fern
So why are foreign diplomats changing their events and lodgings to Trump properties? Are they stupid or are you maybe not looking at this rationally?
So the government ethics office is clueless? It's odd that you are claiming to know more about how to influence people than diplomats and more about the requirements of holding office than the office of ethics. Where did you come by this?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Yeah.
I'm claiming to know more about buying and selling businesses. That would be because I have about 40 yrs experience and they have none.
A clear and obvious give-away is that you people seem to think selling businesses like Trump's and selling stock investments are not substantially different.
Divestment causes as many problems as it attempts to solve.
Fern
What's the basis for your claim that they have none? My guess? Absolutely nothing.
I assume you've abandoned the idea that you know how to influence people better than diplomats then though?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that, the ethics office included. It's a total give-away that you've let someone dupe you into thinking that.
Any idea on when you're going to start addressing the conflicts of interest you claimed didn't exist, asked about, and then ignored?
Well then why the hell all the bitching about his business holdings if he can be bought by a simple compliment?
Again, for the record for the umpteenth time, not a Trump supporter.
MongGrel
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2013
- 38,466
- 3,067
- 121
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter