[QUOTE]If Donald Trump is elected president, will he and his family permanently sever all connections to the Trump Organization, a sprawling business empire that has spread a secretive financial web across the world? Or will Trump instead choose to be the most conflicted president in American history, one whose business interests will constantly jeopardize the security of the United States?
Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family’s bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency.
A close examination by [I]Newsweek[/I] of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html[/URL]
Tell me again how trump is anti establishment. I fucking dare you.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("ALL CAPITAL TITLES ARE ANNOYING" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
He's going to make america great again guys! you'll see it's all going to work for the best in the end when a guy with literal criminal connections takes the seat of power! It's OK if it happens because it happened democratically!
That article is extremely biased. We have known about Trump's business since... well since he started it. You know how many business operate like his? Almost all of them at that scale. And the whole part about the "alleged" pay to play by hillary is insane. She absolutely did pay to play, you can trace the money and the emails for over 50 plus meetings she had that were initially denied and then accepted after donations we made. She was ccd on the emails that her chief of staff literally sent to confirm the meetings.
Although the question is valid of whether he will step aside from his business completely, the article almost seems to try to attack him for having a successful business that has already been vetted by numerous sources many times.
This whole article seems to be an attempt to distract people from the real truths of Hillary Clinton.
Just so you know. I'm a fan of neither.
ALSO OP, might want to fix your quote, the first paragraph is repeated.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51049953]He's going to make america great again guys! you'll see it's all going to work for the best in the end when a guy with literal criminal connections takes the seat of power! It's OK if it happens because it happened democratically![/QUOTE]
hey since he has hotels there, hes also gonna make india great again and saudi arabia and dubi and turkey and Italy and ireland and...!
bias or not, its still a fact that donnald does not do anything that doesnt benefit donnald and he also cannot guarantee that he wont be enriching his own business empire with his decisions. on top of that he will not be isolated from his company at all since his children and wife will still run it
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51049976]That article is extremely biased. We have known about Trump's business since... well since he started it. You know how many business operate like his? Almost all of them at that scale. And the whole part about the "alleged" pay to play by hillary is insane. She absolutely did pay to play, you can trace the money and the emails for over 50 plus meetings she had that were initially denied and then accepted after donations we made. She was ccd on the emails that her chief of staff literally sent to confirm the meetings.
Although the question is valid of whether he will step aside from his business completely, the article almost seems to try to attack him for having a successful business that has already been vetted by numerous sources many times.
This whole article seems to be an attempt to distract people from the real truths of Hillary Clinton.
Just so you know. I'm a fan of neither.
ALSO OP, might want to fix your quote, the first paragraph is repeated.[/QUOTE]
lmao literally anything about trump is "distracting people from the real truths about hillary clinton". You can't criticize him!
[QUOTE=patq911;51049986]lmao literally anything about trump is "distracting people from the real truths about hillary clinton". You can't criticize him![/QUOTE]
Yes I can, he has no real policy or agenda that is clear and concise. He goes through staff like it's a game of musical chairs. There is a real fear he may be trigger happy when it comes to the military and if he treats the economy like one of his casinos we may be bankrupt in a year's time.
Also I said the article is an attempt at distracting people, especially at a time where serious questions need to be asked of her. Her health is a big issue, Bill and Hillary have said what happened on the 11th has happened before. That's not good. Also calling 1/4 of the nation, the people you want to lead, deplorables is insanely idiotic and shameful. No candidate has ever said something like that before and she should not be leading a country she thinks she is morally superior to.
Also, going off of that, in that speech she said these deplorables were racists, sexist, homophobic and what not... wasn't Bill and isn't he still a sexist. I mean he ssxually harassed interns and aids while he was in the white house and cheated on Hillary.
That's what i was getting at though, the real questions that need to be asked. Not about Trump's business that has been vetted before and I'm sure will be again. If something is proven, or if he does continue business deals while in office I would ask for his impeachment. I do feel he will hand his operations over to his son though. As from my understanding that is what has happened already. Yet the article makes no notion of that.
I am a fan of the law, speech, and potential. Hillary has closed those doors for me and Trump has closed many.
This article though is biased and almost smells like an attack article specifically written up by the Hillary campaign at a time of need. Especially given the source.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51050034]
Also I said the article is an attempt at distracting people, especially at a time where serious questions need to be asked of her. [/QUOTE]
Right so exactly what he said, you aren't allowed to write articles that criticize Trump because they might "distract people". When can the press and media start pointing out the shadier aspects of Trump's business career? Next week? A couple weeks from now?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51050054]Right so exactly what he said, you aren't allowed to write articles that criticize Trump because they might "distract people". When can the press and media start pointing out the shadier aspects of Trump's business career? Next week? A couple weeks from now?[/QUOTE]
I'm all for critisizm. Especially when warranted. This to me feels unwarranted. It's been well known and documented for the most part his business connections. This was brought up at length in the primaries and dismissed early on. Brining it back up now, especially now, seems very coincidental to say the least. If you can't see the timing here and how loosely worded the article is, with no facts, at all to back it up, then sir no one can help you. There are no sources, just "private" conversations that took place. This article screams attack and has no basis to back it up. They even go off defending Hillary at one point. That's not unbiased journalism and not worth a damn in my mind.
Give me sources, give me facts, give me data and I will say this isn't just an unwarranted attack to distract readers from Hillarys downfall the last 2 weeks.
ReRead read the article yourself and quote me out some actual journalism please. Prove to me I'm wrong.
The media can criticize trump all they want, he'll I encourage it, but only when you have proof and when you can back it up. They have before and I'm sure they will again, this though does not count.
Literally, all I'm saying, is this article is insanely biased and offers no evidence, no truths, and questions that were already dismissed in the primaries. The timing makes sense due to Hillarys recent collapse and it is a poor article.
If the article was better ,I wouldn't be typing this.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51050090]I'm all for critisizm. Especially when warranted. This to me feels unwarranted. It's been well known and documented for the most part his business connections. This was brought up at length in the primaries and dismissed early on. Brining it back up now, especially now, seems very coincidental to say the least. If you can't see the timing here and how loosely worded the article is, with no facts, at all to back it up, then sir no one can help you. There are no sources, just "private" conversations that took place. This article screams attack and has no basis to back it up. They even go off defending Hillary at one point. That's not unbiased journalism and not worth a damn in my mind.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. On the one hand you are trying to make it sound like everything Newsweek investigated has been a matter of public record and that they are essentially digging up known facts about the Trump Foundation in an attempt to distract people from Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate. On the other hand you demand sources, facts, and "data" because you don't believe in confidential, off the record sources. Which is it? Is this something we have known about for awhile or is Newsweek lying?
More to the point, do you not have any problem with electing a president, someone who has a great deal of freedom from the system of checks and balances when it comes to foreign policy, that has so many vested interests all over the world, particularly interests in countries that conflict with the best interest of Americans? You seem to have an issue with Clinton's (thoroughly unproven) "pay to play) scheme but you seem utterly unperturbed by Trumps which is at the very least the same thing only on a much larger scale.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51050090]Give me sources, give me facts, give me data and I will say this isn't just an unwarranted attack to distract readers from Hillarys downfall the last 2 weeks.
[/QUOTE]
Okay so again, you say you are all for criticism for apparently not because this article was written within 2 weeks of "Hillary's downfall", which I'm I'm not even sure what that is referencing. Going by your post you clearly don't think any articles about Trump are warranted for the time being and everyone should be focused on attacking Hillary. Seems unfair and biased to me.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51049976]
This whole article seems to be an attempt to distract people from the real truths of Hillary Clinton.
.[/QUOTE]
:what:
So does this mean every article focused solely on Clinton is an attempt to distract people from Trump?
Are journalists not allowed to write an article about just one candidate without mentioning the other?
Damn, every article about the election so far has been an attempt to distract people from Gary Johnson I guess
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51050054]Right so exactly what he said, you aren't allowed to write articles that criticize Trump because they might "distract people". When can the press and media start pointing out the shadier aspects of Trump's business career? Next week? A couple weeks from now?[/QUOTE]
When the coverage is equal, if the suspicions were reversed Trump would be crucified for corruption, lying about his health and quite possibly treason.
Remember the questions about McCain's health? They were absolutely rampant because they suited the much cried about "Narrative" that Republican's claim they're the victim of.
This article even admits "although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities"
They are attacking Trump on an assumption the bad man must be up to no good. Maybe he is, I'm not an expert. They are doing this despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence that Hillary is utterly entrenched in scandals that no-one seems to want to talk about.
The Emails
"Basket of Deplorables"
Pay-to-play
Her Health
They can suspect anything they want, from where I'm standing only one of the two candidates have irredeemable black splotches on their records that would stop me voting for them either out of distrust or disgust.
When they attack Trump on things he has done, not things they imagine he may have or will do, that's when it's not an empty diversionary tactic.
I imagine there's quite a gap between a businessman playing the global market and two public servants getting rich pitching a global-minded 21st century worldview to rich 'philanthropists', foreign political elites, domestic and foreign industry groups, banks that benefited from changes to glass steagal, those who got rich from NAFTA, etc.
One plays the market and the other represents crony capitalism, at least one actually creates wealth instead of playing political careerist.
[Quote]Over seven frenetic days, Bill Clinton addressed corporate executives in Switzerland and Denmark, an•investors’ group in Sweden•and a cluster of business and political leaders•in Austria. The former president wrapped up his European trip in the triumphant Spanish Hall at Prague Castle, where he shared his thoughts on energy to a Czech business summit.
[...]
Although slightly more than half of his appearances were in the United States, the majority of his speaking income, $56.3 million, came from foreign speeches, many of them in China, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, the Post review found.
The financial industry has been Clinton’s most frequent sponsor. The Post review showed that Wall Street banks and other financial services firms have hired Clinton for at least 102 appearances and paid him a total of $19.6 million.
[...]
Goldman also has paid Hillary Clinton: She addressed tech entrepreneurs in Arizona last fall and women in finance in New York this year.
“President Clinton’s always interesting, but there’s a lot more demand right now for her because she just came out of government and people want to hear about that, whether it’s Iran or Russia or the big challenges she’s faced, and about the dysfunction in Washington,” said a Goldman executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking.
[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html[/url]
Do you want the plutocratic rule of international finance with an associated culture war made to deflect and divide, or do you want a national alternative focusing on the native working class? Do you vote for the rot in our democracy, or the average productive american?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51050153]I don't get it. On the one hand you are trying to make it sound like everything Newsweek investigated has been a matter of public record and that they are essentially digging up known facts about the Trump Foundation in an attempt to distract people from Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate. On the other hand you demand sources, facts, and "data" because you don't believe in confidential, off the record sources. Which is it? Is this something we have known about for awhile or is Newsweek lying?
More to the point, do you not have any problem with electing a president, someone who has a great deal of freedom from the system of checks and balances when it comes to foreign policy, that has so many vested interests all over the world, particularly interests in countries that conflict with the best interest of Americans? You seem to have an issue with Clinton's (thoroughly unproven) "pay to play) scheme but you seem utterly unperturbed by Trumps which is at the very least the same thing only on a much larger scale.
Okay so again, you say you are all for criticism for apparently not because this article was written within 2 weeks of "Hillary's downfall", which I'm I'm not even sure what that is referencing. Going by your post you clearly don't think any articles about Trump are warranted for the time being and everyone should be focused on attacking Hillary. Seems unfair and biased to me.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I apologize for not being clear, as I only just woke up and had to grab some coffee.
The article, is mostly fluff with an edge pointed at Trump. I have not on this website, but elsewhere, attacked articles written to smudge Hillary with little or no justification. Mostly on her health and initially the emails. I was admittedly, proven wrong at the time defending her but I did so as I felt they were unwarranted.
This article solely questions whether Donald will be able to separate his business from his new position as President. While I agree, like I Stated before, that this is a good question to ask, the article does not offer any new insight or information.
With that in mind, given the timing, the articles only purpose is to distract people away from Hillary's current downfall which is the sole media obsession at the moment. These articles always come out from either camps backed media when their campaign is falling. This is just another example, this time from Hillary's side of trying to distract away from her major issues.
Also, a quick side bar, the "pay to play" was proven and is currently being investigated by Congress and multiple Law Centers at the Federal level. Just because you do not pay attention to what's going on Capital Hill does not mean that it is "thoroughly unproven".
The FBI screwed up the investigation to start with when they announced that there was no evidence to convict her. That is not their jurisdiction, that is the DOJ's to decide, and by the FBI coming out and saying that (which they hardly ever do) put the DOJ under pressure to not convict her.
The DOJ has always made those calls, the FBI just investigates these crimes and their investigation was poor to begin with. Then they didn't even put Hillary Clinton on oath to start so she used her health to explain why she "couldn't remember" being briefed on how to handle classified information and they allowed her chief of staff to be her lawyer when she herself was a subject of the investigation!
The amount of idiocracy from a Legal standpoint that happened was insane. Don't sit there and tell me it was unproven when clearly it was not. There are emails clearly giving access to people (access meaning meetings, positions, or well unknown) who donated large sums of money to the Clinton Donation.
It is all there in the original article that was posted and followed up and confirmed by the FBI's report. Even the though FBI said there should be no charges (wrongly overstepping the DOJ as stated before) their report says the exact opposite. I mean they destroyed cell phones and equipment with hammers and lite them on fire for gods sake and they proved they did it. How the hell is that not evidence enough to convict at least one of the staffers of tampering with evidence?
She has proven to give access to international entities if they pay the right price. That is just a fact. Not always did she do this, but enough times to be alarming.
To step into the other side's shoes though:
Trump's business is and always has been international. Of course he has connections overseas. Of course he's had to do some back room dealings to get permits and what not to build his empire. Whether it is legal or not is a question though. Like I said before, if there is evidence that he continues to be apart of his company once he is Commander and Cheif, and or he is proven to have broken the law I will be there first to stand there and call for his impeachment.
I do not want a leader who is solely vested in expanding his empire. That can be said the same for Hillary though to. I do not want a leader who hides information and can be bought out through donations to influence foreign affairs.
Both candidates have skeletons and bad sides to them don't get me wrong.
To get back to my point though.
Journalists are always allowed to write whatever they want "Emperor" and I am allowed to call them out for their clear unbiased attacks to help right a sinking ship that is Hillary's Campaign. It is a free country for the press. I just think that the editor should have held this article to higher standards.
This could have been a great piece, instead it seems to have been haphazardly written to quickly get an article against Trump out into the media.
MY ONLY concern with this article is the timing, lack of new (if it all) evidence, and clear bias nature of it. If they really wanted to make an impact by the way, they would have had this thing out 2 weeks ago, or waited a few more weeks.
This article will go no where and serve to help Hillary in the slightest.
I can offer no further comment at this time on this as I do need to get to work.
If you want to discuss this further with me please PM me, otherwise, let others get involved in the discussion as I will be unable to do so at this time.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51050195]I imagine there's quite a gap between a businessman playing the global market and two public servants getting rich pitching a global-minded 21st century worldview to rich 'philanthropists', foreign political elites, domestic and foreign industry groups, banks that benefited from changes to glass steagal, those who got rich from NAFTA, etc.
One plays the market and the other represents crony capitalism, at least one actually creates wealth instead of playing political careerist.
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html[/URL]
Do you want the plutocratic rule of international finance with an associated culture war made to deflect and divide, or do you want a national alternative focusing on the native working class? Do you vote for the rot in our democracy, or the average productive american?[/QUOTE]
if you want to get real about global wealth inequality, the "average productive american" is an extraordinary bloodsucker.
[URL]http://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American Consumption.htm[/URL]
it's okay though, because non-westerners aren't really people at all
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050188]When the coverage is equal, if the suspicions were reversed Trump would be crucified for corruption, lying about his health and quite possibly treason.[/QUOTE]
Well Trump has been attacked for suspected corruption regarding sending money from his charity to help re-elect an Attorney General that refused to investigate his foundation. As for the other two claims, who knows, it's an falsifiable hypothetical.
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050188]Remember the questions about McCain's health? They were absolutely rampant because they suited the much cried about "Narrative" that Republican's claim they're the victim of.[/QUOTE]
Those questions came up because he was at the time the oldest person seeking office. He was older than both Clinton and Trump is now. There were also miscellaneous other aspects about his health, like his treatment for melanoma.
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050188]This article even admits "although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities"
They are attacking Trump on an assumption the bad man must be up to no good. Maybe he is, I'm not an expert.[/QUOTE]
Right, the article isn't saying that Trump should be locked up for breaking a crime or whatever. It's just stating that there are numerous, blatant conflict of interests between the office of presidency, foreign nations, and the Trump Foundation, and that Trump needs to make a clean break from the foundation.
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050188]They are doing this despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence that Hillary is utterly entrenched in scandals that no-one seems to want to talk about.
[B]
The Emails
"Basket of Deplorables"[/B]
[I]Pay-to-play[/I]
[B]Her Health[/B][/QUOTE]
Bolded were covered extensively in the media and Newsweek ran editorials on all three stories. What about pay to play?
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050188]They can suspect anything they want, from where I'm standing only one of the two candidates have irredeemable black splotches on their records that would stop me voting for them either out of distrust or disgust.
When they attack Trump on things he has done, not things they imagine he may have or will do, that's when it's not an empty diversionary tactic.[/QUOTE]
So they shouldn't cover Trump at all then if the coverage could be interpreted as negative, because you think Clinton is worse, so media should focus on getting other people to agree with your conception?
[QUOTE=Conscript;51050195]I imagine there's quite a gap between a businessman playing the global market and two public servants getting rich pitching a global-minded 21st century worldview to rich 'philanthropists', foreign political elites, domestic and foreign industry groups, banks that benefited from changes to glass steagal, those who got rich from NAFTA, etc.
One plays the market and the other represents crony capitalism, at least one actually creates wealth instead of playing political careerist.[/QUOTE]
The reason this story exists is because the businessman playing the global market is going to become the public servant getting rich by pitching a worldview at "philanhtropists and foreign political elites". You can't take issue with what the Clintons did then just give Trump a pass when the level of his foreign investment is exponentially larger.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51050195]Do you want the plutocratic rule of international finance with an associated culture war made to deflect and divide, or do you want a national alternative focusing on the native working class? Do you vote for the rot in our democracy, or the average productive american?[/QUOTE]
What is Trump going to do for the working man in America?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51050334]
So they shouldn't cover Trump at all then if the coverage could be interpreted as negative, because you think Clinton is worse, so media should focus on getting other people to agree with your conception?
[/QUOTE]
From where I'm standing, Clinton has many more black splotches.
Hammer Trump on everything they can, lots of readers of these publications support Hillary and vilify
Trump, I'm not saying they shouldn't, close scrutiny of public officials breeds integrity. It's why I liked Sanders.
I am saying that Left Wing media shouldn't throw shit that doesn't exist at the Right Wing and vice versa.
It's an opinion. It could be wrong, like I said, I'm no expert.
I come from a country with little to no party politics, I vote for those who I believe have integrity, common sense and the ability to lead the country.
Clinton seems to be lacking in all three, so yes, I dislike her.
Edit: In regards to your other points in the unlikely event you call me out for ignoring them, I don't know the US elections inside out. I only see what's widely reported over here. I can't comment more than my opinions.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51050195]I imagine there's quite a gap between a businessman playing the global market and two public servants getting rich pitching a global-minded 21st century worldview to rich 'philanthropists', foreign political elites, domestic and foreign industry groups, banks that benefited from changes to glass steagal, those who got rich from NAFTA, etc.
One plays the market and the other represents crony capitalism, at least one actually creates wealth instead of playing political careerist.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html[/url]
Do you want the plutocratic rule of international finance with an associated culture war made to deflect and divide, or do you want a national alternative focusing on the native working class? Do you vote for the rot in our democracy, or the average productive american?[/QUOTE]
nice job pretending that the democratic strategy is to "divide"
much like the bullshit claims that Obama has been a divisive president
as if Trump's actions and desires are anything but divisive
[editline]14th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hick2;51050403]From where I'm standing, Clinton has many more black splotches.[/QUOTE]
I don't think financial corruption is anywhere near as bad as active efforts to take rights away from minorities.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51050179]:what:
So does this mean every article focused solely on Clinton is an attempt to distract people from Trump?
Are journalists not allowed to write an article about just one candidate without mentioning the other?
Damn, every article about the election so far has been an attempt to distract people from Gary Johnson I guess[/QUOTE]
no, every article not written about gary johnson is an attempt to distract from jill stein
[QUOTE] I don't think financial corruption is anywhere near as bad as active efforts to take rights away from minorities.
[/QUOTE]
Corruption leads away from rights for minorities. You deal with corruption, you make it easier to create a society that is less oppressive.
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51050090]I'm all for critisizm. Especially when warranted. This to me feels unwarranted. It's been well known and documented for the most part his business connections. This was brought up at length in the primaries and dismissed early on. Brining it back up now, especially now, seems very coincidental to say the least. If you can't see the timing here and how loosely worded the article is, with no facts, at all to back it up, then sir no one can help you. There are no sources, just "private" conversations that took place. This article screams attack and has no basis to back it up. They even go off defending Hillary at one point. That's not unbiased journalism and not worth a damn in my mind.
Give me sources, give me facts, give me data and I will say this isn't just an unwarranted attack to distract readers from Hillarys downfall the last 2 weeks.
ReRead read the article yourself and quote me out some actual journalism please. Prove to me I'm wrong.
The media can criticize trump all they want, he'll I encourage it, but only when you have proof and when you can back it up. They have before and I'm sure they will again, this though does not count.
Literally, all I'm saying, is this article is insanely biased and offers no evidence, no truths, and questions that were already dismissed in the primaries. The timing makes sense due to Hillarys recent collapse and it is a poor article.
If the article was better ,I wouldn't be typing this.[/QUOTE]
For all these words you said so little.
Trump spends other peoples money for charity in his own name. Explain that. Apologize for that.
I bring that up to characterize what you describe as "fluff" when describing a future president.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.