Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ExpandMyMind

Trump's company enters major golf course

25 posts in this topic

Quote

The company partnering on President Trump’s new golf course in Dubai awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to a firm owned by the Chinese government — violating Trump’s promise to avoid foreign government transactions while he’s in office.

Trump’s partner, DAMAC, gave a $32 million contract to the Middle East subsidy of the China State Construction Engineering Corporation to help build part of the upcoming Trump World Golf Club in Dubai.

 

DAMAC and the Chinese company both announced the deal in press releases earlier this year, with barely any mention of Trump. McClatchyDC first reported the connection to the President’s company.

It is unclear when the deal was struck, but both companies announced the agreement after Trump took office. The course is scheduled to open in 2018.

The Chinese company has a history of corruption allegations, and the World Bank in 2009 banned it for years from taking any contracts financed by the bank.

Trump has promised his company would not enter any foreign details unless the “normal and customary arrangements” had been made before his victory.

Doing so could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause, an anti-bribery provision in the Constitution that says federal officials cannot accept gifts from foreign governments. Breaking the clause is a potentially impeachable offense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-company-enters-major-golf-course-deal-with-china-govt/ar-AArHYNM?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Breaking the clause is a potentially impeachable offense.

:w00t: but you'll have to rely on the courage of Congress critters to accomplish that.  Good luck with THAT!  You really should do a bit of reading about what it takes to actually Impeach AND remove a sitting President.  Unless enough Congress members feel they can knife him and not pay the price, he will NEVER be removed from office.  It's a real heartburn moment for the Left - deep inside they KNOW they are responsible for getting him elected :w00t:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, and then said:

:w00t: but you'll have to rely on the courage of Congress critters to accomplish that.  Good luck with THAT!  You really should do a bit of reading about what it takes to actually Impeach AND remove a sitting President.  Unless enough Congress members feel they can knife him and not pay the price, he will NEVER be removed from office.  It's a real heartburn moment for the Left - deep inside they KNOW they are responsible for getting him elected :w00t:

Sadly you are right.  The constitution is nothing but ink on paper these days.  No one is going to punish this president (or probably any future ones) for violating it when it could damage their own careers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, and then said:

:w00t: but you'll have to rely on the courage of Congress critters to accomplish that.  Good luck with THAT!   

Holy hell man you really are rooting for a dictatorship arent ya? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like its a close call as to when the deal was struck as it relates to Trump's inauguration. I'm not sure whether being president elect places any restrictions on what he can do or not. 

Trump hires company owned by Chinese government to build golf course

 

Quote

Press releases from the companies state the agreement was made in early 2017, around Trump's inauguration. If the deal was made after his victory, it could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause, a Constitutional anti-bribery provision dictating federal officials may not receive gifts from foreign governments. Breaking the clause is considered an impeachable offense.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Holy hell man you really are rooting for a dictatorship arent ya? 

Nah, just laughing at the silliness that has overtaken the Left these days.  You guys need to relax a bit and stop listening to the hysteria from the MSM.  Seriously, man, you'd think the guy was Satan himself if you believe all the hyperbole that has been spewed about him.  I'm opinionated, sure, but I'd hardly qualify as a white supremacist or a member of the SturmTruppen.  The ones you need to worry about are those who would cheerfully shout down the will of the majority in 31 States after last November's results.  Once we begin down THAT road, America doesn't survive.  You should think long and hard about that.  I'll say it again - one group of Americans will NEVER force another to obey at the point of a gun.  There are simply too many of us who'd willingly die to protect our freedom.  ALL enemies, foreign OR DOMESTIC, remember?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, and then said:

Nah, just laughing at the silliness that has overtaken the Left these days.  You guys need to relax a bit and stop listening to the hysteria from the MSM.

My position has NOTHING to do with any hysteria from the MSM and everything to do with concern for the nation.  

3 minutes ago, and then said:

 I'm opinionated, sure, but I'd hardly qualify as a white supremacist or a member of the SturmTruppen. 

Of course and I wouldnt claim otherwise. That said though you really seem to relish the fact that the person you voted for doesnt appear to have too much respect for the law, if that law might inconvenience him or he otherwise disagrees with it in some way. Thats where my "rooting for dictatorship" comment came from. 

5 minutes ago, and then said:

The ones you need to worry about are those who would cheerfully shout down the will of the majority in 31 States after last November's results.

I have an eye on them, I do however think ya'll are creating a boogeyman out of ANTIFA which doesnt really exist - at least nowhere near the extent which you're trying to make them out to be. 

I am much more concerned with those who cheer on dictatorial behavior because its "their guy" . That whole "all it takes for evil to triumph is good people doing nothing" thing. 

2 minutes ago, and then said:

 I'll say it again - one group of Americans will NEVER force another to obey at the point of a gun.  

I truly dont understand why you keep repeating this mantra. The only ones with guns in this equation are the government and they are your people. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 you really seem to relish the fact that the person you voted for doesnt appear to have too much respect for the law,

I have an eye on them, I do however think ya'll are creating a boogeyman out of ANTIFA which doesnt really exist - at least nowhere near the extent which you're trying to make them out to be. 

 

 

You must also consider that the person we voted against had no respect for the law either, so that is a wash.

ANTIFA is creating their own reputation.   I agree that most of them are just bored people looking for something to protest, but we can all see that it will tend to get violent.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lock them all up, every single MoFo who came out wearing a mask., keep them locked up indefinitely without charges as per patriot act.

Edited by aztek
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

That said though you really seem to relish the fact that the person you voted for doesnt appear to have too much respect for the law, if that law might inconvenience him or he otherwise disagrees with it in some way.

You don't even get the irony in this statement, do you?  Those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law watched Obama crap on both for eight years.  Maybe you complained about some of his actions, maybe not, but Trump hasn't done anything to break the laws the way Obama did.  IF every action of the previous president had been held up to the standard of scrutiny of Trump's administration, he'd have probably never been reelected.

 The bottom line is that my last statement IS the truth about where this country seems to be headed.  IF the Left has their way, a duly elected president will be hounded from office.  That is a dangerous precedent.  What's to stop mass protests in the streets when the next Democrat wins that office, especially if it's a close election?  The sycophantic left leaning media can howl and create whatever reality they want to going forward but they have lost the ability to subtly convince large numbers of free-thinking people of anything any longer.  They have destroyed their own credibility.  They are so openly Partisan that they have been caught out in actual LIES that they won't even retract when the lies are proven.  Do you imagine that most people are idiots or so rabidly Partisan toward Trump (who isn't even a Republican) that they would follow him into some kind of insurrection against the Constitution?  On the contrary, the Left would CHEERFULLY take away our Second Amendment rights and selectively curtail the First Amendment rights of all who disagree with them.  

Progressivism is an openly anti-Constitutional ideology.  If you deny this then you haven't bothered to read ANY of Woodrow Wilson's (among others) writings about what being a Progressive means.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, and then said:

IF every action of the previous president had been held up to the standard of scrutiny of Trump's administration, he'd have probably never been reelected.

I agree and I think that every action of every politician period should be held to the same scrutiny as Trump's regime has been.

12 hours ago, and then said:

 Do you imagine that most people are idiots or so rabidly Partisan toward Trump (who isn't even a Republican) that they would follow him into some kind of insurrection against the Constitution?  On the contrary, the Left would CHEERFULLY take away our Second Amendment rights and selectively curtail the First Amendment rights of all who disagree with them.  

I seem to remember many cheering on Trump's idea to change the first amendment when he was first elected so yes I do think that people are so rabidly Trump they would follow him into some kind of insurrection against the constitution.  

Here's why they will gleefully do so: They will believe they doing it against the left and therefore that justifies it. Thats how I see the mindset you put forth playing out. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I seem to remember many cheering on Trump's idea to change the first amendment when he was first elected so yes I do think that people are so rabidly Trump they would follow him into some kind of insurrection against the constitution.  

Could you explain this a little better? I have no idea what you mean. I would rather not have taken out of context quotes as an explanation please.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michelle said:

Could you explain this a little better? I have no idea what you mean. I would rather not have taken out of context quotes as an explanation please.

When Trump first took office his surrogates floated the idea of altering the 1st amendment. Many on here cheered the idea.  

Reince Priebus admits Trump administration has looked into changing the First Amendment

 

Quote

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus admitted during a Sunday morning interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl that the Trump administration has "looked at" a constitutional amendment to free speech protections.

Karl sought to clarify President Trump's tweet that "the failing New York Timeshas disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?" "That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment," Karl said. "Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?"

"I think it's something we've looked at," Priebus replied in the affirmative. "How that gets executed, or whether that goes anywhere, is a different story."

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Okay, do you think it is appropriate for a "news agency" to slander people with only hearsay, innuendo and no evidence? Shouldn't there be consequences for ruining people's lives on a rumor? Leave Trump out of it for a moment. It has been happening to average people quite regularly lately.

Edited by Michelle
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle said:

Okay, do you think it is appropriate for a "news agency" to slander people with only hearsay, innuendo and no evidence? Shouldn't there be consequences for ruining people's lives on a rumor? Leave Trump out of it for a moment. It has been happening to average people quite regularly lately.

Well I do think its OK for a news agency to report what they have been told by well placed sources and there are already consequences for ruining people's lives on a rumor. The laws as written however protect the first amendment more than they do the individual and I think thats appropriate as overall the 1st amendment protects everyone. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Well I do think its OK for a news agency to report what they have been told by well placed sources

So you think everything reported is supported by a reliable source they don't have to reveal. I've seen first hand how the media manipulates direct quotes and video due to "time constraints" too many times.

You say they do it against Antifa and you won't admit they continue the practice when it is something you agree with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle said:

So you think everything reported is supported by a reliable source they don't have to reveal. I've seen first hand how the media manipulates direct quotes and video due to "time constraints" too many times. 

Oh im in no way saying that the media are saints , not even a little. I once gave an hour long interview that they literally cut down to two sentences, wanna guess how flattering those sentences were? LOL 

That said though the alternative is unacceptable if we have any hope for our nation to survive

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

You say they do it against Antifa and you won't admit they continue the practice when it is something you agree with.

Well this is kind of a vague statement . I mean do I acknowledge that the press can screw up on a story? Yes, of course. Do I think it happens with the frequency that Trump would like everyone to believe? Absolutely not, not even close. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did an hour and they didn't show you in the best light. Think about what they could do to you being under scrutiny 24/7.

I see a vast difference on how the media portrayed and is portraying Bush, Obama and Trump. When Obama was in office they said "the government" did this or that when it wasn't favorable. When Bush and now Trump are/were in office they directly blame it on the president. I've been alive long enough to see the hypocrisy of the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michelle said:

You did an hour and they didn't show you in the best light. Think about what they could do to you being under scrutiny 24/7.

I see a vast difference on how the media portrayed and is portraying Bush, Obama and Trump. When Obama was in office they said "the government" did this or that when it wasn't favorable. When Bush and now Trump are/were in office they directly blame it on the president. I've been alive long enough to see the hypocrisy of the media.

Sure there is hypocrisy in the media but I think this kinda falls under the old quote of "those who give up liberty for security deserve neither". 

Yes the media can absolutely be agenda driven and control the narrative, thats why its our jobs to be vigilant citizens and take in as much information from as many sources as possible in order to make informed decisions. The alternative however is a weak and scared media which allows the government to run amok wholly unmonitored and unchallenged and that would spell the end for America. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Antifa is the most dangerous threat to free speech these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michelle said:

In my opinion, Antifa is the most dangerous threat to free speech these days.

 In my opinion its the President who floated the idea of altering the 1st amendment because he didnt like unflattering stories about him that is the most dangerous threat to free speech these days. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem holding people responsible who are intentionally lying to people.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 In my opinion its the President who floated the idea of altering the 1st amendment because he didnt like unflattering stories about him that is the most dangerous threat to free speech these days. 

Obviously I wouldn't support changing the amendment, but I cant blame him for feeling that way. I have never seen in my life someone so out right lied about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 6:19 AM, preacherman76 said:

Obviously I wouldn't support changing the amendment, but I cant blame him for feeling that way. I have never seen in my life someone so out right lied about.

On 9/14/2017 at 6:13 AM, preacherman76 said:

I see no problem holding people responsible who are intentionally lying to people.

What about the Muslim, Kenyan, who wiretapped Trump Tower, was taking our guns, and was going to imprison Texans in FEMA camps during Operation Jade Helm?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

What about the Muslim, Kenyan, who wiretapped Trump Tower, was taking our guns, and was going to imprison Texans in FEMA camps during Operation Jade Helm?

The guy who should have went to prison for giving drug cartels assault weapons? 

Funny thing about that, is no one said anything about sending Texans to FEMA camps. They were saying that they were training to one day drop the martial law bomb on certain sections of Texas. Like the media always does, they took that and ran with it. It's easy to see when main stream is lying about someone from alternative media cause there is never a direct quote. Like when they said Jones was "deeply racist" without giving anything to back that statement up. 

BTW, Obama was spying on Trump, along with several others, including congressmen and Supreme Court justices. He used the IRS as a weapon against citizens who were political opponents. And got a free pass from main stream on all of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.