• Electoral college must not elect Donald Trump unless he sells his business, say Obama and Bush's eth
    138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51427909]The law seems pretty cut and dry, if weirdly worded. Seems like he'd have to (at least temporarily) let go of his ownership of any real estate.[/QUOTE] That's because it's an absolutely archaic law moreso in line to keep folks from being president who were also bestowed, say a Dutchy out in Wales.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51428564]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.[/QUOTE] The desperation is the fact that there are tons of people nationwide and multiple people in this very thread who are still talking about denying Trump the presidency. Look, I realize that his business is a problem in this regard. Having corporate and foreign influence in our politics was one of the main reasons why I supported Trump over Clinton. But to be crucifying him months in advance of him even taking the oath of office in some vain hope of stopping him becoming president is the definition of desperate.
i feel like if this did go through there would be a lot of angry people rioting.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428667]The desperation is the fact that there are tons of people nationwide and multiple people in this very thread who are still talking about denying Trump the presidency. Look, I realize that his business is a problem in this regard. Having corporate and foreign influence in our politics was one of the main reasons why I supported Trump over Clinton. But to be crucifying him months in advance of him even taking the oath of office in some vain hope of stopping him becoming president is the definition of desperate.[/QUOTE] "DON'T CRITICIZE TRUMP" Why? What gives him the freedom to not be criticized? What about his actions, history, and past gives him a hard fucking pass from criticize for the next few months? There's no policy or anything being laid down, but the foundations of his administration are being laid down and to deny that that shows us some relative indication of the future of his administration is just wrong. Flat out fucking wrong. If Clinton had won, would you be biting your tongue and refraining from all critique? No matter what you say, I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be biting your tongue.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428681]"DON'T CRITICIZE TRUMP" Why? What gives him the freedom to not be criticized? What about his actions, history, and past gives him a hard fucking pass from criticize for the next few months? There's no policy or anything being laid down, but the foundations of his administration are being laid down and to deny that that shows us some relative indication of the future of his administration is just wrong. Flat out fucking wrong. If Clinton had won, would you be biting your tongue and refraining from all critique? No matter what you say, I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be biting your tongue.[/QUOTE] "Stopping trying to take the presidency away from Trump" isn't nearly the same as "Don't Criticize Trump." I'm not even sure how you could have come to that conclusion from his comment.
i'd prefer our higher levels of government not breach the most important parts of the constitution.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428702]"Stopping trying to take the presidency away from Trump" isn't nearly the same as "Don't Criticize Trump." I'm not even sure how you could have come to that conclusion from his comment.[/QUOTE] We would have the same thing if Clinton won. Trump is walking a thin gray line between the constitution and his business. Its just the fact of it. What happens because of it is outside my knowledge... who makes the determination? Is there a legal process?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428702]"Stopping trying to take the presidency away from Trump" isn't nearly the same as "Don't Criticize Trump." I'm not even sure how you could have come to that conclusion from his comment.[/QUOTE] If lawyers as studied as these lawyers think there's a case that could be important to bring to bear in this situation, I'm not really going to doubt them on that. As for the idea that everyones trying to take the presidency away from him, I personally don't see a mountain of evidence for that, most of the liberals I know have conceded that defeat and moved on, and they generally speaking, know the best next step is to watch, and criticize Trump like a hawk. Whether we criticize him to "crucify" him, or whether it's to just keep the pressure on is up for debate, but his presidency is all but determined and reality at this point so I think, like many do, that we best keep up the pressure on the man.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;51427838]Always wondered how Trumps businesses would affect his chance at presidency, and now that he's president-elect, I wonder if he'll have to give up his businesses before taking office or it's just something that'll be swept under the rug. If Trump has to ultimately sell his businesses, I wonder if he'll commit or if he'll fight it.[/QUOTE] He'll probably sell it to his wife for a dollar just to sate the letter of the law.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428767]If lawyers as studied as these lawyers think there's a case that could be important to bring to bear in this situation, I'm not really going to doubt them on that. As for the idea that everyones trying to take the presidency away from him, I personally don't see a mountain of evidence for that, most of the liberals I know have conceded that defeat and moved on, and they generally speaking, know the best next step is to watch, and criticize Trump like a hawk. Whether we criticize him to "crucify" him, or whether it's to just keep the pressure on is up for debate, but his presidency is all but determined and reality at this point so I think, like many do, that we best keep up the pressure on the man.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think Trump and his team are stupid ebough to leave themselves open to a glaring legal issue like this? I'm serious, people need to pick their Trump. Is he a corrupt and conniving con artist or his he a blundering moron who just loses money? He can't be both. Is he an ideologically motivated right wing radical or is he a chameleon who morphs his politics at will for political gain? He can't be both. Is he a crazy war hawk who is going to nuke the world or is he "too soft in Russia"? Is he Putins ally or his pawn? Is he a nationalist bigot or is he a globalist in disguise? Pick one please.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428870]Do you seriously think Trump and his team are stupid ebough to leave themselves open to a glaring legal issue like this? I'm serious, people need to pick their Trump. Is he a corrupt and conniving con artist or his he a blundering moron who just loses money? He can't be both. Is he an ideologically motivated right wing radical or is he a chameleon who morphs his politics at will for political gain? He can't be both. Is he a crazy war hawk who is going to nuke the world or is he "too soft in Russia"? Is he Putins ally or his pawn? Is he a nationalist bigot or is he a globalist in disguise? Pick one please.[/QUOTE] why do you insist that those are the views that I hold? is it easier for you to deal with me when you assume you know what I think? Trump isn't a genius, he isn't an idiot. I have never said he's a manipulative genius, nor have I said he's braindead. His business prowess is massively overstated, and people like you don't even deal with the fact he never even wrote the book that he himself says he wrote, "The Art of the Deal" so I don't think [B]you[/B] even have an idea who Trump is.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428767]If lawyers as studied as these lawyers think there's a case that could be important to bring to bear in this situation, I'm not really going to doubt them on that.[/QUOTE] Really? Are you sure you aren't not doubting them because it makes Trump look bad? This is a couple lawyers out of an entire country who are bringing up an issue that an entire campaign filled with lawyers didn't even mention. Why wouldn't you doubt it? I'm certain you would have doubted similarly well-known lawyers making a similar argument against Clinton. Like I presented before, there have been presidents before who owned personal businesses and had no constitutional issues. This isn't a new case that's never been seen before.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428870]Do you seriously think Trump and his team are stupid ebough to leave themselves open to a glaring legal issue like this? I'm serious, people need to pick their Trump. Is he a corrupt and conniving con artist or his he a blundering moron who just loses money? He can't be both. Is he an ideologically motivated right wing radical or is he a chameleon who morphs his politics at will for political gain? He can't be both. Is he a crazy war hawk who is going to nuke the world or is he "too soft in Russia"? Is he Putins ally or his pawn? Is he a nationalist bigot or is he a globalist in disguise? Pick one please.[/QUOTE] you can very easily be an ideologically motivated right wing radical and a chameleon who morphs his politics at will for political gain at the same time
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51428502]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] Trump running against Sanders, "Well at least Trump isn't Clinton!"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428884]why do you insist that those are the views that I hold? is it easier for you to deal with me when you assume you know what I think? Trump isn't a genius, he isn't an idiot. I have never said he's a manipulative genius, nor have I said he's braindead. His business prowess is massively overstated, and people like you don't even deal with the fact he never even wrote the book that he himself says he wrote, "The Art of the Deal" so I don't think [B]you[/B] even have an idea who Trump is.[/QUOTE] Ok I admit that my post was a little uncalled for because I wasn't responding directly to you. My original question still stands, however. And if you do think that he's intelligent, like you said, then do you really think he'd keep himself open to a legal problem of this magnitude?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428908]My original question still stands, however. And if you do think that he's intelligent, like you said, then do you really think he'd keep himself open to a legal problem of this magnitude?[/QUOTE] He's not really convincing us that he's capable of handling this legal problem since he hasn't really done anything to address it, only make it worse. A big criticism is that he's leaving his Blind Trust to Ivanka, yet she went to a meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan alongside Trump.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428702]"Stopping trying to take the presidency away from Trump" isn't nearly the same as "Don't Criticize Trump." I'm not even sure how you could have come to that conclusion from his comment.[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard to take these kinds of posts seriously when Trump himself threatened to challenge the results if he lost and called for a literal revolution in 2012 when Obama won.
[QUOTE=Paramud;51428970]It's kind of hard to take these kinds of posts seriously when Trump himself threatened to challenge the results if he lost and called for a literal revolution in 2012 when Obama won.[/QUOTE] You mean like people actually did after Trump was elected? (Also, how does your response have anything to do with this thread? HumanAbyss directly responded to a poster about not being able to criticize Trump when the poster said nothing about that.)
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428978]You mean like people actually did after Trump was elected? (Also, how does your response have anything to do with this thread? HumanAbyss directly responded to a poster about not being able to criticize Trump when the poster said nothing about that.)[/QUOTE] look at his response before that to me "Clinton", not a defense, or an explanation, just another wonderful "BUT CLINTON" post [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] you're holding my feet to the fire but not exactly doing the same to him when he did exactly what i supposedly did, and responded with a totally useless response though I don't think my point was nearly as far off the mark as you make it seem
[QUOTE=sgman91;51428978]You mean like people actually did after Trump was elected?[/QUOTE] I'm not really sure what you mean by this unless you're referring to the protests. In which case, well... [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266034630820507648[/media]
[QUOTE=Paramud;51428989]I'm not really sure what you mean by this unless you're referring to the protests. In which case, well... [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266034630820507648[/media][/QUOTE] Oh but you see when Trump and his supporters/sympathizers do it, then it's alright. It's totally justified. But when the OTHER side does it, well that's just unacceptable and should be condemned-- even when the circumstances are as dire as they are especially now moreso than ever.
[QUOTE=Paramud;51428989]I'm not really sure what you mean by this unless you're referring to the protests. In which case, well... [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266034630820507648[/media][/QUOTE] Do you see me apologizing for Trump? Where did I do that? I voted against Trump and despise him as a person.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51429009]Do you see me apologizing for Trump? Where did I do that? I voted against Trump and despise him as a person.[/QUOTE] I'm honestly having trouble understanding what you mean.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428982]look at his response before that to me "Clinton", not a defense, or an explanation, just another wonderful "BUT CLINTON" post[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what post you're referring to? Do you mean the one were he ironically said that Trump should have just given it to Clinton while making fun of you saying that it would be impossible for Trump to take care of the business issues?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51429030]I'm not sure what post you're referring to? Do you mean the one were he ironically said that Trump should have just given it to Clinton while making fun of you saying that it would be impossible for Trump to take care of the business issues?[/QUOTE] It's not that I don't think the issues can't be solved I think they won't be I think at the end of the day, for all the bluster about constitutional issues, Trump will be the president no matter what happens, even if his blind trust stays the way it is now, which is by definition, not a blind trust what so ever, and I think it's likely it will stay in the form it's in. I have serious doubts anything will actually happen.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51428762]We would have the same thing if Clinton won. Trump is walking a thin gray line between the constitution and his business. Its just the fact of it. What happens because of it is outside my knowledge... who makes the determination? Is there a legal process?[/QUOTE] We had the same thing when Clinton was in the race. One of the most popular criticisms were claims, entirely baseless so far, that the Clinton Foundation was taking money from foreign donators and Clinton was using that money to help fund her political career. The problem was there was no observable transference of money from the foundation to her campaign. This contrasts with Trump's business interests which present a very clear, very obvious conflict of interest between his role as head of state and head of his own private businesses. If you (not you, speaking generally) were someone who ever said or thought "gee the Clinton Foundation seems pretty shady" this should be setting off at least the same amount of alarms. Again though I don't necessarily think this should make Trump ineligible for the presidency, but I'm not sure how the legal stuff actually works. It seems like he can just transfer the businesses to someone he knows then pick back up where he left off after his 4 years.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51429041]It's not that I don't think the issues can't be solved I think they won't be I think at the end of the day, for all the bluster about constitutional issues, Trump will be the president no matter what happens, even if his blind trust stays the way it is now, which is by definition, not a blind trust what so ever, and I think it's likely it will stay in the form it's in. I have serious doubts anything will actually happen.[/QUOTE] I don't even necessarily disagree with you, although we do disagree on the appropriate level of separation between Trump and his businesses. Personally, I don't even think it would work in a full on blind trust. Do you honestly think Trump will have no knowledge of his business's dealings? I sure wouldn't trust them to keep it 'blind,' no matter who ran it. My issue is that you keep personally insulting and misrepresenting people's positions. Here's the majority of your posts from the last page: [QUOTE]How hard are you trying to lie to yourself on a daily basis right now[/QUOTE] Insult, added nothing to the conversation. [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] You seem to have totally misread his post in that one. He ironically said that Trump should just give the presidency to Clinton, not that you like Clinton. [QUOTE]"DON'T CRITICIZE TRUMP" Why? What gives him the freedom to not be criticized? What about his actions, history, and past gives him a hard fucking pass from criticize for the next few months? There's no policy or anything being laid down, but the foundations of his administration are being laid down and to deny that that shows us some relative indication of the future of his administration is just wrong. Flat out fucking wrong. [/QUOTE] This one totally misrepresented his post, 100%. He specifically said that people should stop trying to take the presidency from Trump, not that they shouldn't criticize him. [QUOTE]As for the idea that everyone's trying to take the presidency away from him, I personally don't see a mountain of evidence for that, most of the liberals I know have conceded that defeat and moved on[/QUOTE] No one said that "everyone" is trying to take the presidency from him. Again, you're strawmaning the argument. He specifically said "tons" of people, which there sure seem to be. [QUOTE]why do you insist that those are the views that I hold? is it easier for you to deal with me when you assume you know what I think?[/QUOTE] His post you responded to never said that you held all those views, yet you responded like he did. He specifically brought up the question of whether Trump's entire legal team never thought of this. It's not a crazy question to ask. Personally, I think it's even more telling that Clinton's team didn't think it up, especially with how much she focused on his taxes and other business issues. You consistently respond to the worst possible version of what you think someone wanted to say instead of what they actually said. It gets frustrating.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51428870]Do you seriously think Trump and his team are stupid ebough to leave themselves open to a glaring legal issue like this? I'm serious, people need to pick their Trump. Is he a corrupt and conniving con artist or his he a blundering moron who just loses money? He can't be both. Is he an ideologically motivated right wing radical or is he a chameleon who morphs his politics at will for political gain? He can't be both. Is he a crazy war hawk who is going to nuke the world or is he "too soft in Russia"? Is he Putins ally or his pawn? Is he a nationalist bigot or is he a globalist in disguise? Pick one please.[/QUOTE] He is a corrupt con artist who is also a blundering moron. He is a right wing extremist who also morphs his political stances to suit his interests (and apparently his daily mood, given how often they shift). He is a thin-skinned retaliatory warhawk who also does not understand the fundamental facts about our political history with Russia. He is Putin's ally [I]and[/I] his pawn. None of these are mutually exclusive concepts. He is all of those things. The only exception is your nationalist/globalist argument, which doesn't seem to be based in any reality I'm aware of. Trump is a textbook nationalist. Any confusion as to that is simple ignorance. [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;51428908]Ok I admit that my post was a little uncalled for because I wasn't responding directly to you. My original question still stands, however. And if you do think that he's intelligent, like you said, then do you really think he'd keep himself open to a legal problem of this magnitude?[/QUOTE] Are you somehow under the impression that this is the only humongous legal problem Trump has ever faced? Do you have any idea how many massive lawsuits have been filed against him for shady dealings such as this? I reckon Trump would fight this the same we he fights all his legal battles: he'll make a lot of angry tweets about it, insult everybody who criticizes him, fight it tooth and nail, offer up a bunch of non-solutions, and delay the judgment until it no longer matters. The likelihood of the Electoral College refusing to vote for Trump is [B]incredibly[/B] slim. The likelihood of Trump legitimately dealing with this conflict of interest before he takes office is probably even slimmer. And don't fool yourself, man. I know you're about as hardboiled a Trump supporter as there is, but [B]this is[/B] an illegal conflict of interest. That is not a matter of political opinion or debate: it's a simple fact. You're writing off the seriousness of these charges with the statement that Trump is somehow "too smart" to have let himself fall into legal trouble, and that is woefully misguided.
So, if he has to sell his assets, and his family (which was brought up during that 60 minutes interview) isn't an option, how long will it be until he goes back on his word and actually takes the president's salary?
Couldn't he just sell his business to his daughter or sons and buy it back in 2024?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.