Trump hotels exempted from ban on foreign

[ExpandMyMind]

12 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Because everyone is constantly provided with misleading facts and statistics from whatever side they agree with at the start. Politicians have mastered the art of spin and people are falling for it more and more these days instead of less and less. There isn't a politician in office I would defend if evidence of a crime was presented. I lean left, but democrats and republican as titles mean very little to me. 

 

It's not even the effect of spin. There is no spin for half the stuff I see. There's not even an attempt to spin for most of it. It's basically just people not willing to listen to anything that goes against their beliefs. There's no need for spin when people don't even acknowledge or recognise or care what happened.

It's like a scientist trying to explain the age of the earth to a Creationist. Their brains turn off the logic department so that anything that goes against what they believe basically doesn't register. Politics in the US is completely like a religion.

We saw it online with Bush supporters, but it's at a completely different level now. 

[Robotic Jew]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's not even the effect of spin. There is no spin for half the stuff I see. There's not even an attempt to spin for most of it. It's basically just people not willing to listen to anything that goes against their beliefs. There's no need for spin when people don't even acknowledge or recognise or care what happened.

It's like a scientist trying to explain the age of the earth to a Creationist. Their brains turn off the logic department so that anything that goes against what they believe basically doesn't register. Politics in the US is completely like a religion.

We saw it online with Bush supporters, but it's at a completely different level now. 

That's a very fair comparison and it's spot on.

I blame youtube and the internet. Too many places to go for people to spew any opinion somebody is willing to listen to and too many people ready to believe it. I

[ExpandMyMind]

47 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

That's a very fair comparison and it's spot on.

I blame youtube and the internet. Too many places to go for people to spew any opinion somebody is willing to listen to and too many people ready to believe it. I

I blame Roger Ailes.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You claim it's a figure of speech a couple of sentences after you admit you 'absolutely believe' what you said. You are slowly eroding what little credibility you have left.

So I can’t believe me using a figure of speech to express an idea?  You have no credibility left to erode.

 

Dress it up any way you want, Trump managed to bankrupt one of the most difficult to bankrupt businesses there ever has been.

He didn’t manage to bankrupt anything.  It’s something that didn’t work out for him.  This happens with all billionaires.  That is the reason they are wealthy.  They aren’t afraid to fail from time to time.  It’s interesting that you are more interested in his failures and not his successes which are more numerous.

 

He's pretty much doing the same with the US. 

He is?  Market is getting stronger.  Wages are up.  I just got  3% raise, after 0.9 to 1.1 under the 8 years of Obama.  Unemployment is down.  The US is the hottest economy right now.  I would say you’re a bit off with that statement.

 

But we're getting off topic. The topic is corruption, and apparently how some people are okay with their politicians being bribed, as long as they're Red. I honestly thought all would be outraged by this when I posted it - it's not a partisan issue, really. How horribly naive of me.

Since the beginning of human history, leaders have held court for the expressed reason for foreign dignitaries to influence the head of state.  There is nothing wrong with that.  You can call it bribing if you want, it doesn’t make it so.  Renting rooms in a Trump hotel is not “undue foreign influence and conflict of interest”.  Setting up a phony foundation front for pay-to-play money laundering is.  The Emoluments clause has never been enforced.  And to be honest, it seriously makes a difference if someone steps down from running his business only to pick it back up later after 4 or 8 years, really does anything?  Someone so tied to his business can’t be separated from it completely.  This is not a matter of his *corruption* but the weaponization of it by the Progs to attack him.

 

I mean didn't you guys apparently vote for him to 'drain the swamp'? He just gave the alligators ****ing viagra.

He didn’t give them Viagra.  It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome because he is draining the swamp and the swamp creatures don’t want to go and are fighting it all the way.

 

It's so weird. Over here we have no trouble turning on David Cameron, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Theresa May when they completely mess up or are simply inadequate, but in the US it's almost as if politicians and their parties have a religious-like following - especially, but not exclusively, on the right. Trump really could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still have a team of online useful idiots defending him with their last breath.

 

Like I keep saying, Trump is no angel but compared to the Progressives, he’s an innocent babe.  He doesn’t put up with their childish $-hit.

 

Yeah, I saw that too:

 

[Gromdor]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Wait.. what... "paid off" ? You "know" that President Trump is being "paid off". 

Can  you explain precisely what you mean by that ? 

Well, we are in a thread where his supporters are finding reasons why it is perfectly acceptable for him to receive money from foreign governments.  That he is being "paid off" isn't what is being debated but rather the legality of his payoffs and how much it influences his policies.

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

We must look the other way when Hilary runs her crooked money laundering scheme known as the Clinotn Trust Fund...  Ya, that be fine. Because, see - she be a good woman. Ya

No man, that is flat wrong.  She is not a good woman, she is a clever one.  She skirts the edge of the law.  I am all for an investigation, maybe she made a mistake and stepped over the line.  Otherwise, it is immoral and unethical, but not illegal.  Most Americans be they conservative or liberal don't have any universal standards of morality or ethics that extend across party lines. I have no evidence for that statement except what I see and read every day. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Well, we are in a thread where his supporters are finding reasons why it is perfectly acceptable for him to receive money from foreign governments.  That he is being "paid off" isn't what is being debated but rather the legality of his payoffs and how much it influences his policies.

Ahhhh,,, all of a sudden, "Pay for Play" is a problem!    Grom, you're a little late

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ahhhh,,, all of a sudden, "Pay for Play" is a problem!    Grom, you're a little late

Well you know the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."  If we weren't sharp enough to catch the first crook, we definitely would be stupid not catching the second pulling the same con.

[RAyMO]

14 hours ago, and then said:

Yeah, it does look dodgy.  BTW, when the Clinton Foundation was receiving billions from foreign governments while HRC was our SecState, did you have a problem with how that looked?  I'm not equivocating.  Wrong is wrong, it's just that these days we only ever seem to hear about the wrong done by one side of the political spectrum.  Do you ever wonder why that would be?  Serious, educated people can't really believe that only one group of politicians are always the ones breaking the rules and laws, what?

Before becoming active on this forum, I didn't really follow US politics other than how it affected us directly e.g. in involving us in wars etc. so I am not really clued in on the Clinton foundation per se. That said I was against her running for President simply because I think the States is way big enough to avoid family dynasties at the top of its politics. Though if the foundation got away with what you claim (I have no reason to doubt it) that added with the current debate shoiws clearly that rules need to be strengthened.

I have no problem condemning Dems for past actions, but such actions should be used to support demands for viable change such that current and future governments of whatever colour are held to higher standards.

Where I live I have generally been supportive a 1 political party, however, due to a few insensitive comments or really bad PR, its canvassers will be getting cold shift on my doorstep in the next few weeks. 

Its taken me time and age - but political allegiance, while important to me - has over the years become more and more tempered by a requirement that political representatives display a little more common sense, inclusivity, and decorum than barroom brawlers. [for the avoidance of doubt this sentence has sod all to do with the US]

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by RAyMO

[RAyMO]

14 hours ago, aztek said:

you need to drop the illusion that you can eradicate corruption, you can not, and that is  the reality of this world, corruption ALWAYS existed and always will, all we can do is manage it.  and not let it grow into a monster.

i really do not care about trump hotels, and whatever corruption you think happening there, i care more about corrupt courts , and corrupt doctors and lawyers scamming billions from tax payers pool. and making insurance higher for everyone. 

Agree with this, but this implies that countries like the US should not write or enable rules to facilitate potential corruption. Rather where loopholes are exposed which could give opportunities for unintended bribery etc, these should be quickly closed down by government.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well, we are in a thread where his supporters are finding reasons why it is perfectly acceptable for him to receive money from foreign governments.  That he is being "paid off" isn't what is being debated but rather the legality of his payoffs and how much it influences his policies.

So what you ACTUALLY mean is that you have no evidence that President Trump is being "paid off"  by ANYBODY, but  you wanted to slander him anyway ?  

< makes notes > 

Nobody has really answered my previous question, so far as I can tell. 

Is there any precedent for us having a rich president who runs multiple (several hundred) companies ? Or are we "testing the boundaries" here ? 

Edited April 11, 2019 by RoofGardener

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

So what you ACTUALLY mean is that you have no evidence that President Trump is being "paid off"  by ANYBODY, but  you wanted to slander him anyway ?  

< makes notes >

DOH!

 

Is there any precedent for us having a rich president who runs multiple (several hundred) companies ? Or are we "testing the boundaries" here ? 

Not to the caliber of Trump but this isn’t even testing the boundaries.  It’s the ongoing attempt at a soft coup.  How much longer is this going to be allowed to go on?  If it isn’t stopped, it will damage our form of government.  But I don’t suspect that Progs care about that because for them it is only about securing and wielding absolute power.  And it doesn’t matter how many Americans are harmed by that.

[Gromdor]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

So what you ACTUALLY mean is that you have no evidence that President Trump is being "paid off"  by ANYBODY, but  you wanted to slander him anyway ?  

< makes notes > 

Nobody has really answered my previous question, so far as I can tell. 

Is there any precedent for us having a rich president who runs multiple (several hundred) companies ? Or are we "testing the boundaries" here ? 

Hmm.  Perhaps you should maybe read the article the OP linked when he started this thread?  No one is going to answer a question that has already been addressed.

 

 

[aztek]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 

Is there any precedent for us having a rich president who runs multiple (several hundred) companies ? Or are we "testing the boundaries" here ? 

on this scale it is the first one

[Gromdor]

Just now, aztek said:

on this scale it is the first one

Well yeah.  Most followed the Constitution and the emoluments clause and divested themselves.  Jimmy Carter and his peanut farm ring a bell?

[Setton]

22 hours ago, and then said:

I don't think any American president has been a billionaire upon taking office. 

Probably still true. 

Good to see you acknowledge why Trump won't release his tax returns. 

[+and-then]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

Good to see you acknowledge why Trump won't release his tax returns. 

I did?  Funny, I don't recall saying that.  I don't care about his tax returns.  I care about saving my country from the filth trying to take it down.  I just think it's stupid to look for problems over such a minor issue as hotel room rentals.  But after listening to Barr yesterday, I think the focus might be returning to true potential criminality in high places.  I suspect a few lawyers are being contacted today, and that's a very good thing for America, IMO.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

I did?  Funny, I don't recall saying that.  I don't care about his tax returns.  I care about saving my country from the filth trying to take it down.  I just think it's stupid to look for problems over such a minor issue as hotel room rentals.  But after listening to Barr yesterday, I think the focus might be returning to true potential criminality in high places.  I suspect a few lawyers are being contacted today, and that's a very good thing for America, IMO.

You said America has never had a billionaire for a president. That would include Trump. 

So you're fine with corruption so long as the culprits agree with you politically. How very American. 

[RoofGardener]

OK... so Trump has divested himself of day-to-day control of his business interests. Why isn't that good enough ? 

What would peoples PREFERRED solution be ? 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

OK... so Trump has divested himself of day-to-day control of his business interests. Why isn't that good enough ? 

What would peoples PREFERRED solution be ? 

Perhaps that he put it into a blind trust like every other president before him? 

Rather than just letting his sons act as the middle men so he can still profit from his office. 

[aztek]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

 

What would peoples PREFERRED solution be ? 

it will always be different from what he did, regardless of what he did.  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

15 hours ago, Setton said:

You said America has never had a billionaire for a president. That would include Trump. 

So you're fine with corruption so long as the culprits agree with you politically. How very American. 

Setton, try to understand this... just *try*.

Trump was never a politician.  That makes people like me very happy.  Clinton has been accumalating  baggage and  dirty underwear for YEARS.  Hilary was far more corrupt long long ago than Trump ever could be in his two years in office.

 Were you around when Hilary was the chief suspect in the $40 million heist from the White Water Savings and Loan?  That was before hilary even came to washington as first lady.

Then three of her partners in Arkansas ended up in prison in schemes hilary and bill were in  on but avoided indictment. One was a law partner of hers at Rose Law firm, Webster Hubble, who hilary made 3rd most powerful man  in the Justice Dept. He went to prison, was indicted again, and died in prison. Hilary escaped. Then Bill and Susan McDougal, both went to jail protecting Billary. Bill M. died in jail, Susan got out eventually. Both had the chance to get out of jail if they testified about bill and hill. neither would.

Then there is Law Partner, Vince Foster, who police say committed suicide. But on closer examination, we see that he was going to be indicted by Ken Starr and he could take hilary down if he wanted a lighter sentence. HeHum...

All of the above happenings were from mid 1990's.  That is a long history of CORRUPTION.   Then it never  stops. Hilary gets caught breaking the Espionage Act, lies to the FBI about it (according to Comey) which is obstruction of justice, deletes files that the FBI demanded - which is obstruction, too.  Her actions cost the lives of 18 chinese spies who were executed. But who is counting, eh?

Setton, this is the SHORT list of things Hilary did BEFORE she got into the white house.  Thank god she did not,. 

now, what were you saying about trump corruption??   does that mean you're going to call him  racist???  

*snip*

Edited April 12, 2019 by Kismit

[Setton]

56 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Setton, try to understand this... just *try*.

now, what were you saying about trump corruption??   does that mean you're going to call him  racist???  

Honestly, I know next to nothing about Hillary. Most of her career was well before I became interested in US politics. So you won't find me supporting her anywhere. 

But it seems like you're saying one person's crimes make it acceptable for others to commit them also. Is that the case? Don't you think your country deserves better than that? 

Quote

You libs are mentally challenged.

Also, not a 'lib' or mentally challenged. Unless your definition is just 'anyone who dares to question Trump'. In which case, you should probably look at yourself, not me. 

For the record, I'm a centrist with a left lean on social issues. My country doesn't feel your pathological need to divide blindly into red or blue. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Setton

[RoofGardener]

8 hours ago, Setton said:

Honestly, I know next to nothing about Hillary. Most of her career was well before I became interested in US politics. So you won't find me supporting her anywhere. 

But it seems like you're saying one person's crimes make it acceptable for others to commit them also. Is that the case? Don't you think your country deserves better than that? 

Also, not a 'lib' or mentally challenged. Unless your definition is just 'anyone who dares to question Trump'. In which case, you should probably look at yourself, not me. 

For the record, I'm a centrist with a left lean on social issues. My country doesn't feel your pathological need to divide blindly into red or blue. 

Yeah.. red or blue. 

And the Americans even manage to get THAT the wrong way around !  

[RAyMO]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah.. red or blue. 

And the Americans even manage to get THAT the wrong way around !  

Our wrong altogether, in he US its blue and lighter blue, bit like the Blair years in the UK.

Edited April 12, 2019 by RAyMO