• Electoral college must not elect Donald Trump unless he sells his business, say Obama and Bush's eth
    138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51428038]Ive yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.[/QUOTE] at this point, trump is [i]losing[/i] more than he gains from this
[QUOTE=th0rianite;51427822]George Washington didn't have to give up his real estate holdings.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, our first president who was elected back when this sort of thing was still being decided. That's a great comparison. I really hope that your post is just a dumb joke. [QUOTE=King Tiger;51427960]Absolutely desperate. I can't wait for January 20.[/QUOTE] How exactly is this desperate? It's a completely legitimate concern over something that was put in place for a good reason.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51427888]TBH, I don't agree. A person shouldn't have to get rid of their entire outside life when becoming president. That would just solidify that only lifetime politicians would ever run for president. I'm not sure how that section of the constitution applies.[/QUOTE] Well, it's not really that, but it's putting your companies into a blind trust to minimize conflicts of interest.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51427960]Absolutely desperate. I can't wait for January 20.[/QUOTE] nothing screams "desparation" like going to some tiny footnote in some obscure legal document like [i]the fucking constitution[/i]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51428011]ah I see we're back at the "Trump is only in it for the money" point again[/QUOTE] Wrong. This is the "conflicts of interest are always detrimental to the bodies which they affect" and the body in question is your government. Ask anyone in any business, even retail. You don't get into a position where you're going to take advantage of it for personal gain or just plain fuck around with it. Examples: A restaurant owner shouldn't be in charge of a competing restaurant's deliveries, A climate change denier working for the koch brothers shouldn't be in charge of the epa, A president shouldn't be getting money through his hotels from foreigners visiting him to talk policy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51427888]TBH, I don't agree. A person shouldn't have to get rid of their entire outside life when becoming president. That would just solidify that only lifetime politicians would ever run for president. I'm not sure how that section of the constitution applies.[/QUOTE] This is bad because as the President he can influence trade and secure deals that directly benefit him and his business while shitting on others.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51427917]nothing will happen. he'll be president, he'll have the "Blind" trust set up with Ivanka, and nothing will stop the two from crossing over and causing conflicts of interest but that doesn't matter anymore[/QUOTE] How does it not matter? How is this not a legitimate proposition?
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51428237]How does it not matter? How is this not a legitimate proposition?[/QUOTE] It's sarcasm and hyperbole. The point is that it'll have been swept under the rug and won't have consequences for trump.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51428237]How does it not matter? How is this not a legitimate proposition?[/QUOTE] Also blind trusts have to be set up with non-family IIRC, and more so because he wants to involve his kids in the government
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51427917]nothing will happen. he'll be president, he'll have the "Blind" trust set up with Ivanka, and nothing will stop the two from crossing over and causing conflicts of interest but that doesn't matter anymore[/QUOTE] not with an incredibly apathetic attitude like that, that's for sure
[QUOTE=false prophet;51428224]This is bad because as the President he can influence trade and secure deals that directly benefit him and his business while shitting on others.[/QUOTE] Yes, I understand that, but that applies to everyone that's run for president in our history. Every single one had enough personal wealth that they would have been able to influence. I, personally, don't want to create a class of citizens that are lifetime politicians any more than we already have. There's risk of corruption, yes, but making it illegal to out outside business isn't the only way to try and prevent it. If the people don't like what he's doing, then they can push for impeachment. Maybe journalists can actually start doing their job and hold politicians to some accountability.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428307]Yes, I understand that, but that applies to everyone that's run for president in our history. Every single one had enough personal wealth that they would have been able to influence. I, personally, don't want to create a class of citizens that are lifetime politicians any more than we already have. There's risk of corruption, yes, but making it illegal to out outside business isn't the only way to try and prevent it. If the people don't like what he's doing, then they can push for impeachment. Maybe journalists can actually start doing their job and hold politicians to some accountability.[/QUOTE] So what do we do then? Let Trumps hotels be the only ones foreign dignitaries use for fear of upsetting him and weakening their hand? I get you're not for him but what's the answer here? Let him run everything his way with clear conflicts of interest?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428315]So what do we do then? Let Trumps hotels be the only ones foreign dignitaries use for fear of upsetting him and weakening their hand? I get you're not for him but what's the answer here? Let him run everything his way with clear conflicts of interest?[/QUOTE] I'm fine with him putting it into someone else's hands, like his family, while he's president. I was mostly responding to the OP's article that calls on Trump to sell all his holdings. It is a little silly thinking that Trump is in a widely different position than every president before him. They all had quite a bit of personal wealth that could have easily been an influence on their decisions.
But it's clear that trust will not fulfill the terms that it's supposed to
I don't think theres anything they can hold over him to make him do that.
There's a reason that the character of elected officials has been such a big deal throughout our history*. Corruption is essentially impossible to prevent through law. It depends on the people in charge either A) being good enough to people to prevent corruption or B) giving the government so little power that corruption doesn't have power to effect much. *This is less and less the case in our post-truth society where winning is all that matters.
Are we ignoring the fact that a Trump presidency will literally be unconstitutional? I don't care who would or wouldn't benefit from his conflicts of interest, it's a moot point. Throw him out.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;51427811]Is this a suggestion or is it actually a thing anyone can enforce.[/QUOTE] technically speaking the minute he takes oath on jan 20th a corruption case can be brought against him and if congress refuses to begin impeachment the supreme court would be forced to rule on that and so on and so forth, itd be one hell of a constitutional crisis if the president was breaking the constitution and congress refused to prosecute him for it
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428338]But it's clear that trust will not fulfill the terms that it's supposed to[/QUOTE] You're right, he should recuse himself and give the presidency to Clinton because there's absolutely no way his business situation can be sorted out.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;51428367]Are we ignoring the fact that a Trump presidency will literally be unconstitutional? I don't care who would or wouldn't benefit from his conflicts of interest, it's a moot point. Throw him out.[/QUOTE] It's a tenuous argument at best and clearly wasn't the intent of the constitutional wording when written. As has been said previously, plenty of other presidents owned businesses that directly benefited them. James Madison, for example, owned a Tobacco plantation. Were everyone who bought his tobacco giving him gifts? Obviously not.
There's a liberal conspiracy theory out there involving Pence manipulating the fuck out of Trump's transition decisions because Pence knows that Trump will be impeached, and as a result, Pence will be the new Commander-In-Chief. This is all based on: - Trump being Trump - Mike Pence being a career politician, doing things as Governor that would benefit someone running for President of the United States - The story (can't find the article, but I remember reading it) that pre-vp pick Pence intentionally delayed one of Trump's flights so he could have a meeting with Trump with the purpose of convincing Trump to pick him for the VP pick. - Pence running the Transition Team, and picking mostly establishment republicans.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428371]You're right, he should recuse himself and give the presidency to Clinton because there's absolutely no way his business situation can be sorted out.[/QUOTE] What a fucking pathetic retort I don't want Clinton I just don't want trump more but you're incapable of taking those two points together
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51428416]There's a liberal conspiracy theory out there involving Pence manipulating the fuck out of Trump's transition decisions because Pence knows that Trump will be impeached, and as a result, Pence will be the new Commander-In-Chief. This is all based on: - Trump being Trump - Mike Pence being a career politician, doing things as Governor that would benefit someone running for President of the United States - The story (can't find the article, but I remember reading it) that pre-vp pick Pence intentionally delayed one of Trump's flights so he could have a meeting with Trump with the purpose of convincing Trump to pick him for the VP pick. - Pence running the Transition Team, and picking mostly establishment republicans.[/QUOTE] Not exactly that far fetched, Pence's role model is Dick Cheney
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428371]You're right, he should recuse himself and give the presidency to Clinton because there's absolutely no way his business situation can be sorted out.[/QUOTE] he had a coupla years and his entire presidential run to sort em out
[QUOTE=Luni;51428248]Also blind trusts have to be set up with non-family IIRC, and more so because he wants to involve his kids in the government[/QUOTE] A blind trust doesn't even really work with Trump, due to the nature of his businesses and his branding. With a blind trust, you entrust your assets to be handled by a third-party you've never met, and they will ideally reinvest your assets in such a way that you can't have the slightest clue where your holdings lie. Most of the times, it's not much of a problem. If the person entering the blind trust has a lot of stock in Microsoft, the person running the blind trust can just sell that stock and reinvest it elsewhere reasonable. Of course, given that most of Trump's money is from real estate with his name plastered all over it, it's hard to reshuffle his assets in a way that Trump or his family couldn't know. You'd have to effectively sell all of his real estate, and invest it in other real estate he doesn't presently own, or areas where his name isn't visible.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428371]You're right, he should recuse himself and give the presidency to Clinton because there's absolutely no way his business situation can be sorted out.[/QUOTE] is this how it's going to be? Year 4 into Trump's presidency and some will still be using Clinton to deflect from Trump
[QUOTE=Maegord;51428469]A blind trust doesn't even really work with Trump, due to the nature of his businesses and his branding. With a blind trust, you entrust your assets to be handled by a third-party you've never met, and they will ideally reinvest your assets in such a way that you can't have the slightest clue where your holdings lie. Most of the times, it's not much of a problem. If the person entering the blind trust has a lot of stock in Microsoft, the person running the blind trust can just sell that stock and reinvest it elsewhere reasonable. Of course, given that most of Trump's money is from real estate with his name plastered all over it, it's hard to reshuffle his assets in a way that Trump or his family couldn't know. You'd have to effectively sell all of his real estate, and invest it in other real estate he doesn't presently own, or areas where his name isn't visible.[/QUOTE] not to mention most of that realestate is managed through shell and holding companies for tax and liability purposes so that makes it even harder to liquidate them or track them
[QUOTE=Judas;51428051]at this point, trump is [i]losing[/i] more than he gains from this[/QUOTE] He's also making money off it, diplomats that visit him are staying at Trump hotels, and security for Trump Tower requires 2 floors to be cleared. To do this, the NYPD has compensated the business by renting out those floors, in other words Trump is making money from his own security measures. Not to mention once he's President, he'll be able to make decisions that are financially beneficial to his business.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51427901]Trump would rather conceed Presidency before the selling of his assets. Does't matter he's going to get elected with his business Empire still in his hands..[/QUOTE] lol. You mean "sell" them to his son and then "buy" them back for one american dollar?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428371]You're right, he should recuse himself and give the presidency to Clinton because there's absolutely no way his business situation can be sorted out.[/QUOTE] Or he could just sort out his businesses. I think he should be president because he won. I don't see why you see it as desperate and a non-issue. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lolkork;51427920]It's weird that this wasn't brought up much earlier. Feels like such an obvious argument against Trump.[/QUOTE] Are you asking why Clinton/Democrats didn't bring it up, or why it wasn't brought up generally? Because many outlets wrote stories about it and I made a few posts about his possible conflicts of interests regarding his business holdings, particularly the ones in foreign states that America has "complicated" relationships with. I think Clinton brought it up in one of the debates as well. Trump himself said multiple times he would put his holdings in a "blind trust" managed by his children, which is not a blind trust. It's definitely been brought up. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51428509]He's also making money off it, diplomats that visit him are staying at Trump hotels, and security for Trump Tower requires 2 floors to be cleared. To do this, the NYPD has compensated the business by renting out those floors, in other words Trump is making money from his own security measures. Not to mention once he's President, he'll be able to make decisions that are financially beneficial to his business.[/QUOTE] This is actually insane.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.