Electoral college must not elect Donald Trump unless he sells his business, say Obama and Bush's eth
138 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Anteep;51430103]Couldn't he just sell his business to his daughter or sons and buy it back in [B]2024?[/B][/QUOTE]
Either very optimistic or very pessimistic
and what if that youth rebellion kicks in?
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51427920]It's weird that this wasn't brought up much earlier. Feels like such an obvious argument against Trump.[/QUOTE]
probably because he could just turn around and say clinton foundation
makes clinton look ilke a hypocrite
[QUOTE=Anteep;51430103]Couldn't he just sell his business to his daughter or sons and buy it back in 2024?[/QUOTE]
still would be a conflict of interest iirc
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51429078]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]
the problem is unless he commits to selling off those properties in foreign countries then the rest of us will still always question whether or not he is working for our interest or his. his team has decided to meet the smallest legal requirement and thats it which is fucking typical of the guy but conflict of interest isnt about legally spelled out requirements its about preventing the appearance of a conflict which he has not, apparently will not, and is trying to convince people that there isnt a conflict.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;51430214]probably because he could just turn around and say clinton foundation
makes clinton look ilke a hypocrite[/QUOTE]
The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Trump's business empire is, well, a business empire. Not comparable in the slightest. Every president has charitable ties.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51430173]Either very optimistic or very pessimistic
and what if that youth rebellion kicks in?[/QUOTE]
What if the youth rebellion kicks in?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51430749]The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Trump's business empire is, well, a business empire. Not comparable in the slightest. Every president has charitable ties.[/QUOTE]
The Clinton Foundation is still shady as shit in this context, but they at least attempted to make an appearance of playing by the rules. It's a properly registered charity. Clinton's family members promised to step down from all administrative positions. From my understanding they did everything in a [I]technically legal[/I] manner, even if they ran into some grey areas.
Trump's business empire appears improper [B]and[/B] might well be [I]technically illegal[/I] in the context of the presidency. The Donald J. Trump Foundation was found to be set up illegally (since it was never registered) and he personally dispersed other people's money in ways that also appear to be illegal.
People just ignored threads made on these issues here focusing on Clinton fainting and Trump's pussy grabbing tape instead.
[QUOTE=Anteep;51430844]What if the youth rebellion kicks in?[/QUOTE]
"fuck you dad i wanted a green lambo not orange on my 16th birthday and now you arent getting trump tower back"
[sp]btw i don't know if it went across but i wasnt srs[/sp]
[QUOTE=KnightLight;51427827]Can't help but be reminded of that saying of how it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for the rich to get to heaven.
Let's see what he cares about more, his money or the presidency?[/QUOTE]
Comparing 'heaven' to the white house as if the white house is somewhere you want to be.
Being the POTUS sucks and it always will.
Your second statement "Let's see what he cares about more" is inane. He's already given up an extremely large amount of money throughout the race, all that would be a waste if he gave up now.
If he can't find a way around this, of course he'll double down. He's in too deep now.
Everyone tries so hard with their cringy 'snarky speculation' that they don't even think about what they are saying.
Anyway I think he SHOULD have to give his business up.
Conflict of interest would be an understatement and if we detect that he's using politics to further his business, we should quickly put a stop to that. That's a large reason why alot of people didn't like Clinton for the role of president.
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;51431112]Comparing 'heaven' to the white house as if the white house is somewhere you want to be.
Being the POTUS sucks and it always will.
Your second statement "Let's see what he cares about more" is inane. He's already given up an extremely large amount of money throughout the race, all that would be a waste if he gave up now.
If he can't find a way around this, of course he'll double down. He's in too deep now.
Everyone tries so hard with their cringy 'snarky speculation' that they don't even think about what they are saying.
Anyway I think he SHOULD have to give his business up.
Conflict of interest would be an understatement and if we detect that he's using politics to further his business, we should quickly put a stop to that. That's a large reason why alot of people didn't like Clinton for the role of president.[/QUOTE]
he didnt give up much tbh, he billed his campaign everything and had all his events at his properties, they made money off of this whole thing and are already telling diplomats they should stay at trumps properties when in town...
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51429882]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.[/quote]
Just repeating the things I wrote and saying the opposite isn't clever and you're simply wrong.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah he's such a miserable failure in legal matters yet he's still yet to be sunk by any of it.
You think that he's been able to avoid losing his fortune through "angry tweets" well then maybe he'll tweet his way out of this one too. Apparently that's how he does it. I thought it was the fact that he was able to find good enough lawyers all his life. But regardless, whether it's you or I who's correct he'll be able to pull through this matter as well.
well, i think it's a good chance that trump will give up his empire to his kids. the dude is 70, is gonna undoubtedly go through a stressful 4 years and will either toughen up to run for re-election or gtfo and just be a retired old fart after that.
that, or they'll do something that specifically handles the money from foreign folks, like donate it to charity or something along those lines.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51431975]Just repeating the things I wrote and saying the opposite isn't clever and you're simply wrong.[/QUOTE]
That was a question you posed, and he answered it in a way to show you that they aren't mutually exclusive. You're actually complaining that he answered your question in a way that wasn't either of your two imagined obviously false options.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51431975]Yeah he's such a miserable failure in legal matters yet he's still yet to be sunk by any of it.[/QUOTE]
The US judicial system is notorious for basically solely victimising poor people and letting rich people get off very leniently.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;51427822]George Washington didn't have to give up his real estate holdings.[/QUOTE]
George Washington was elected unanimously and didn't have concerns about corruption and didn't try to bring in the world's worst cabinet
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
There's no way he can sell all of his businesses in less than a month. Not that it's gonna make a difference
The fact that this guy beat Clinton on ethics continues to astound me.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51432450]The fact that this guy beat Clinton on ethics continues to astound me.[/QUOTE]
It was done to Clintons shit campaining and Trumps promises on the economic front winning over Rust Belt voters.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51431975]Just repeating the things I wrote and saying the opposite isn't clever and you're simply wrong.[/quote]
What? Like, those are [i]literally[/I] not mutually exclusive concepts. By the actual definitions of the word. You can't rewrite the entire English language just to suit your argument lol
[quote]Yeah he's such a miserable failure in legal matters yet he's still yet to be sunk by any of it.
You think that he's been able to avoid losing his fortune through "angry tweets" well then maybe he'll tweet his way out of this one too. Apparently that's how he does it. I thought it was the fact that he was able to find good enough lawyers all his life. But regardless, whether it's you or I who's correct he'll be able to pull through this matter as well.[/QUOTE]
You've completely missed the point of my post, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Your signature style is misrepresenting the opponent's argument and seizing on points that were never made.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51433051]What? Like, those are [i]literally[/I] not mutually exclusive concepts. By the actual definitions of the word. You can't rewrite the entire English language just to suit your argument lol [/quote]
Those conflicts I listed are exclusive, in my understanding. This isn't important.
[quote]You've completely missed the point of my post, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Your signature style is misrepresenting the opponent's argument and seizing on points that were never made.[/QUOTE]
Let me lay out what I was trying to say clearly: I do not think a man who has run a business for decades (you can argue about his success, it's irrelevant) and who has just won a US presidential election is, at the same time, so inept that he is missing a glaring legal error about how that same business will be run in the future. And that this alleged error could cost him his throne somehow.
It's pretty straightforward. If you disagree then I think you fundamentally do not understand Trump (And I would argue that I understand him better, seeing how so many on this forum were completely blind to his chance of victory. Go back and read those embarrassing threads from months ago. People are still saying the same things about him.)
I don't think anyone really fundamentally understands trump, he's held so many different and sometimes contradictory positions.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51433137]
It's pretty straightforward. If you disagree then I think you fundamentally do not understand Trump (And I would argue that I understand him better, seeing how so many on this forum were completely blind to his chance of victory. Go back and read those embarrassing threads from months ago. People are still saying the same things about him.)[/QUOTE]
Why would I read embarrassing threads from months ago when I can read embarrassing posts now from someone who thinks his faith in a conman makes him smarter than everyone else on an obscure gaming forum? I'd argue that you understand Trump far less than the average FPer who has been telling you this guy was going to play ya'll like a fiddle when he actually got power and he is already walking away from his crazier positions and filling his appointments with the exact people you all predicted Clinton would.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51433137]Those conflicts I listed are exclusive, in my understanding. This isn't important.[/quote]
We could argue semantics all night, so it'll have to suffice to say that you're objectively wrong on that, like so many other things.
[quote]Let me lay out what I was trying to say clearly: I do not think a man who has run a business for decades (you can argue about his success, it's irrelevant) and who has just won a US presidential election is, at the same time, so inept that he is missing a glaring legal error about how that same business will be run in the future. [/quote]
He didn't "miss" it. He was well aware of the problem from the beginning. He just lied about his steps to fix it until it was too late to seriously pressure him over it. Up until the moment he was actually elected he promised his business would be ran in a blind trust, which would generally be fine if his blind trust were [I]actually[/I] a blind trust. Now that he has been elected, we find out that not only will his children be running the business (a violation of a blind trust itself), but that they will [I]also[/I] be serving roles in his government, which doubles down on that violation. Worse, [B]Trump is still personally and actively promoting his business,[/B] which would have defeated the purpose of a blind trust even if it had been legitimate. This is illegal. This is unconstitutional. This is a blatant conflict of interests.
That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. That is exactly what happened. It's not a matter of interpretation. Denying those facts proves you're living in delusion or denial.
Trump lied his way to the presidency, and now he's simply counting on the fact that it's really too late to force him to sell off his business, and that it's extremely unlikely that he won't get the electoral votes he needs.
[quote]And that this alleged error could cost him his throne somehow.[/quote]
Again, in every single post I've made on this subject, I have said that this is [U][I]not[/I][/U] likely to keep Trump from being sworn in. I've simply said that it's gotten to this point based on his lies and connivery, and that even if legal action is pursued in the face of this, it isn't likely to actually catch up to him until [I]after[/I] he's out of office, unless there is a [B]major[/B] scandal at some point that prompts impeachment action from Congress (again, not likely to happen given a red house and senate).
[quote]It's pretty straightforward. If you disagree then I think you fundamentally do not understand Trump (And I would argue that I understand him better, seeing how so many on this forum were completely blind to his chance of victory. Go back and read those embarrassing threads from months ago. People are still saying the same things about him.)[/QUOTE]
I think you're incredibly misguided, and by extension, shockingly naive. You've fallen for Trump's ridiculous "winner" rhetoric and are letting your flawed perspective of the kind of man he is turn you away from simple, indisputable fact. This is an illegal conflict interest outlined in the US constitution. Trump conned his way past constitutional prerequisites for the office of the president on a lie until it was effectively too late to stop things from moving forward.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51433137]Go back and read those embarrassing threads from months ago. People are still saying the same things about him.)[/QUOTE]
The results of the election do not change who and what Trump is. He is awful for many reasons, and that's the reason we were blind to his chances of winning. Him winning doesn't retroactively change his qualities, just as Clinton would also still have been bad for a number of reasons, had she won.
Yeah that's pretty much my feeling on the subject.
Nobody has been proven wrong about Trump because he won the election. He's still a fucking awful person with an awful platform, the only thing we were wrong about is the assumption that being the worst possible choice for president would actually stop people voting for him.
When your victory dance boils down to [i]"haha! you didn't think we would be dumb enough to elect the worst candidate- but we did!!! that sure showed you suckerrrrs!"[/i], then perhaps you should be celebrating more quietly. Trump's many flaws haven't gone away simply because enough people ignored them.
If only they had chosen Bernie instead of Clinton.
[QUOTE=lol user;51437753]If only they had chosen Bernie instead of Clinton.[/QUOTE]
live and let live. they done goofed big time, and can only hope they'll be able to rebound somewhat in two years, and not put out a total piece of shit in four.
[QUOTE=Pops;51438230]live and let live. they done goofed big time, and can only hope they'll be able to rebound somewhat in two years, and not put out a total piece of shit in four.[/QUOTE]
Watch it be Tim Kaine 2020
[QUOTE=Pops;51438230]live and let live. they done goofed big time, and can only hope they'll be able to rebound somewhat in two years, and not put out a total piece of shit in four.[/QUOTE]
This might be a reasonable thing to say if by "done goofed" you didn't really mean "were shown to be completely incompetent at best and, more realistically, completely corrupt to the point where it's near-impossible to trust anything or anyone from the DNC ever again"
[QUOTE=geel9;51439176]This might be a reasonable thing to say if by "done goofed" you didn't really mean "were shown to be completely incompetent at best and, more realistically, completely corrupt to the point where it's near-impossible to trust anything or anyone from the DNC ever again"[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, I was just being nice. It's not my problem to worry about, I'm a Republican. I'm happy as fuck with the current situation, minus Trump.
[QUOTE=Pops;51440580]Well yeah, I was just being nice. It's not my problem to worry about, I'm a Republican. I'm happy as fuck with the current situation, minus Trump.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's pretty great that the only political party (the DNC) that doesn't seem to be solely devoted to obstructing the government, stripping the rights away from the LGBT community, passing anti-voting laws disguised as voter ID laws, passing laws based on an oppressive religion, and otherwise destroying the moral fabric of this country under the guise of protecting it isn't doing so well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.