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

Trump hotels exempted from ban on foreign

118 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Setton
36 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

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

Wait, blue blue or red blue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Sooooooo.... returning to the topic, after that little scamper through the rainbow.... 

What would people suggest that Donald Trump does ? His businesses have been put into a trust. He WILL make money out of them, regardless. 

The only way he could avoid making money out of them, and having foreign dignitaries staying at this hotels (thinking that this MIGHT influence him), would be to sell off his businesses altogether. Completely sell them. All of them. Even his rights to "The Apprentice". 

Is that realistic ? Is that American ? To say that a successful businessman (or woman) cannot - in effect - be President ? The "political class" - the "professional politicians".. would just LOVE that, as it leaves the field open for them, without these 'amateurs' getting in the way.

Of course, there IS another option. Trump could just instruct his trust not to permit foreigners from staying at his hotels. Of course, many of those 'foreigners' might be from Muslim-majority countries. So the 9th circuit would probably strike that down :P  

Share this post


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

Sooooooo.... returning to the topic, after that little scamper through the rainbow.... 

What would people suggest that Donald Trump does ? His businesses have been put into a trust. He WILL make money out of them, regardless. 

The only way he could avoid making money out of them, and having foreign dignitaries staying at this hotels (thinking that this MIGHT influence him), would be to sell off his businesses altogether. Completely sell them. All of them. Even his rights to "The Apprentice". 

Is that realistic ? Is that American ? To say that a successful businessman (or woman) cannot - in effect - be President ? The "political class" - the "professional politicians".. would just LOVE that, as it leaves the field open for them, without these 'amateurs' getting in the way.

Of course, there IS another option. Trump could just instruct his trust not to permit foreigners from staying at his hotels. Of course, many of those 'foreigners' might be from Muslim-majority countries. So the 9th circuit would probably strike that down :P  

He has it in a revokable not a blind trust.  A simple start would be conducting government business on government property only, switching his trust to a blind trust, a complete ban on all foreign business on his business's that produce a direct tangible product. I.E.  no more Saudi Arabia renting hundreds of rooms and not staying in them.  No more $300,000 memberships for Mar de lago.  Right now, if I wanted to bribe Trump all I would have to do to legally sneak him millions is buy memberships for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

He has it in a revokable not a blind trust.  A simple start would be conducting government business on government property only, switching his trust to a blind trust, a complete ban on all foreign business on his business's that produce a direct tangible product. I.E.  no more Saudi Arabia renting hundreds of rooms and not staying in them.  No more $300,000 memberships for Mar de lago.  Right now, if I wanted to bribe Trump all I would have to do to legally sneak him millions is buy memberships for people.

Hmm.. I'd admit that a blind trust would be BETTER. However, how would he ban all foreign dignitaries (or even just businessmen) from using his Hotels, without being targeted with accusations of racism ? Anyway, foreign visitors are a large part of his custom.... before he ran for president. So you are STILL saying that any President must suffer financially ? 

As for "conducting government business on government property"... umm... how many Hotels does the US Government own ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


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

Hmm.. I'd admit that a blind trust would be BETTER. However, how would he ban all foreign dignitaries (or even just businessmen) from using his Hotels, without being targeted with accusations of racism ? Anyway, foreign visitors are a large part of his custom.... before he ran for president. So you are STILL saying that any President must suffer financially ? 

The whole idea of divesting oneself from all business ties and getting paid what a president gets paid with free food and housing is to prevent a president from suffering financially (and thus be susceptible to bribes).

If you can't exist without foreign money or business, you are fundamentally unfit to be president.

Share this post


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

So you are STILL saying that any President must suffer financially ?

No any president or prime minister or leader of any modern country must abide by norms and rules to minimize both the possibility and appearance of the office holder being 'unduly' influenced by personal reward.

Where such existing norms and rules are not sufficient they must be tightened, they must not be rewritten to facilitate or give the impression of facilitating the exact activities that they (the rules) aimed to deter in the first place. 

Share this post


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

The whole idea of divesting oneself from all business ties and getting paid what a president gets paid with free food and housing is to prevent a president from suffering financially (and thus be susceptible to bribes).

If you can't exist without foreign money or business, you are fundamentally unfit to be president.

I see. 

So you are basically admitting that - in your version of reality - NO businessman would be allowed to be President of the United States, and that the ONLY permitted candidates would be "professional politicians" who have zero practical business experience ?

Interesting. 

VERY interesting, Gromdor. 

I will not forget this :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I see. 

So you are basically admitting that - in your version of reality - NO businessman would be allowed to be President of the United States, and that the ONLY permitted candidates would be "professional politicians" who have zero practical business experience ?

Interesting. 

VERY interesting, Gromdor. 

I will not forget this :)

 

Nope.  What I am saying is that they have to fully divest themselves from their business for the duration of their presidency.  You either care about America or your business.  Can't care for both because situations arise that force you to pick between the two.  Trump is currently picking his business over America because he won't let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

 

16 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Nope.  What I am saying is that they have to fully divest themselves from their business for the duration of their presidency.  You either care about America or your business.  Can't care for both because situations arise that force you to pick between the two.  Trump is currently picking his business over America because he won't let it go.

Such a person would STILL make money out of their business during their term in office. (or rather, they would be able to access profits generated DURING their term of office once they stepped down, so the prospect for financial manipulation/bribery still exists). 

The only way to eliminate all possibility of making money out of the presidency is to force any president to outright sell all of their business interests. Irrevocably and permanantly. 

So you propose that in America - the heart of capitalism - no president can be a businessman/woman. Only "professional politicians' can run for president ? 

Gromdor.. which country do you currently live in ? 

 

In addition, you state that Trump is "currently picking his business over America" 

Can you give me ANY example whereby President Trump has put his business interests over that of America, since becoming President ? 

You can't, can you ? It's just ANOTHER random "drive-by" slander. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


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

 

Such a person would STILL make money out of their business during their term in office. (or rather, they would be able to access profits generated DURING their term of office once they stepped down, so the prospect for financial manipulation/bribery still exists). 

The only way to eliminate all possibility of making money out of the presidency is to force any president to outright sell all of their business interests. Irrevocably and permanantly. 

So you propose that in America - the heart of capitalism - no president can be a businessman/woman. Only "professional politicians' can run for president ? 

Gromdor.. which country do you currently live in ? 

 

In addition, you state that Trump is "currently picking his business over America" 

Can you give me ANY example whereby President Trump has put his business interests over that of America, since becoming President ? 

You can't, can you ? It's just ANOTHER random "drive-by" slander. 

I would say not punishing Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi murder is a good example.  Saudi Arabia pulled his hotel out of the red in DC.

As for which country I live in- It's the country that was so worried about foreign money influencing their government that they put a special clause in their Constitution about it.  For the duration of the presidency, no they cannot be a businessman.  They have one job and one loyalty- to serve the US and it's people.  They can go back to being a businessman after they are done being president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

You really don't see anything wrong with a politician selling something on the side?  Especially one who is a bad businessman and frequently on the verge of bankruptcy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
33 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I would say not punishing Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi murder is a good example.  Saudi Arabia pulled his hotel out of the red in DC.

As for which country I live in- It's the country that was so worried about foreign money influencing their government that they put a special clause in their Constitution about it.  For the duration of the presidency, no they cannot be a businessman.  They have one job and one loyalty- to serve the US and it's people.  They can go back to being a businessman after they are done being president.

Yes, but you are ducking the question, Gromdor. 

Trump HAS stopped being a businessman; his businesses are in a trust. (but not a blind trust.. he still KNOWS what is happening, he just can't control it. He certainly can't "sell something on the side"). 

So why isn't this good enough for you ? Why do you continue to level the accusation that he is somehow corrupt ? 

Share this post


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

Yes, but you are ducking the question, Gromdor. 

Trump HAS stopped being a businessman; his businesses are in a trust. (but not a blind trust.. he still KNOWS what is happening, he just can't control it. He certainly can't "sell something on the side"). 

So why isn't this good enough for you ? Why do you continue to level the accusation that he is somehow corrupt ? 

He hasn't stopped.  He and his staff have advertised Trump businesses with the presidential podium and he routinely steers government business onto his properties.  And he most certainly can sell stuff on the side.  A hypothetical- he could sell nuclear reactor technology to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a million dollars.  Saudi Arabia pays him by having a couple princes (or even some of Trump's American friends) get $300,000 Mar De Lago memberships and a few hundred unused hotel rooms at a hotel going under. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

He hasn't stopped.  He and his staff have advertised Trump businesses with the presidential podium and he routinely steers government business onto his properties.  And he most certainly can sell stuff on the side.  A hypothetical- he could sell nuclear reactor technology to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a million dollars.  Saudi Arabia pays him by having a couple princes (or even some of Trump's American friends) get $300,000 Mar De Lago memberships and a few hundred unused hotel rooms at a hotel going under. 

Hypothetically, he could streak naked through the Rose Garden whilst launching nuclear weapons against New Zealand. But there's the thing.. .he hasn't. 

Can you give me an example of "routinely steer(ing) government business onto his properties" ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
59 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

He hasn't stopped.  He and his staff have advertised Trump businesses with the presidential podium and he routinely steers government business onto his properties.  And he most certainly can sell stuff on the side.  A hypothetical- he could sell nuclear reactor technology to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a million dollars.  Saudi Arabia pays him by having a couple princes (or even some of Trump's American friends) get $300,000 Mar De Lago memberships and a few hundred unused hotel rooms at a hotel going under. 

The company to be making all the money in Kushner's nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia has already taken out a 99 year lease on Kushner's building in NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Well, he could set up something like the Clinton Global Initiative, instead, and solicit bribes outright from foreign governments. That seems to have been perfectly legal. Curious, how all those "donations" dried up, after she wasn't elected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

So why isn't this good enough for you ?

LOL     need you ask?

Share this post


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

Well, he could set up something like the Clinton Global Initiative, instead, and solicit bribes outright from foreign governments. That seems to have been perfectly legal. Curious, how all those "donations" dried up, after she wasn't elected.

Are you sure they did?  I think Slick Willie is still booking speaking engagements at a couple of hundred thousand dollars a pop.

And that Hammerclaw is a frustrating thing for some.  It seems illegal and unethical, but I'm betting the Clintons are cagey enough to skate right up to the edge without going over.  The conservatives think an investigation will reveal all kind of crimes and they'll get to lock her up.  I will bet this year's tax refund that Bill and Hillary will ride off into the sunset smirking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Why do you continue to level the accusation that he is somehow corrupt ? 

Are you thinking that when he was elected he somehow had a conscience epiphany and stopped being a crooked New York Real Estate tycoon?   I guess stranger things have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Are you thinking that when he was elected he somehow had a conscience epiphany and stopped being a crooked New York Real Estate tycoon?   I guess stranger things have happened.

I see you are convinced that he was crooked ?

I would imagine he has bigger fish to fry now. Plus, the media watch his every move very closely. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
24 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I see you are convinced that he was crooked ?

I would imagine he has bigger fish to fry now. Plus, the media watch his every move very closely. 

Did not stop him from that famous Airforce 1 denial about Stormy Daniels. That oh so quick,”No”, spoke volumes about Donald Trumps knee jerk reactions when he knows he has been caught. Deny, deny, deny. Like practiced clockwork. The amount of times that must have worked for him over the last 70 years for him not stop and wonder if he was fueling the enemy of the people, before he said it.

Crikey, that one moment, that blatant knee jerk reactionary lie, so much to be said about how quickly two letters were delivered.

Having said that, this year will be Donald Trumps greatest year, when he achieves more than any other, as he campaigns to retain power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Kismit  - words that will live  in infamy:    "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

Tata, Kis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
14 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Kismit  - words that will live  in infamy:    "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

Tata, Kis.

Hahaha, so very true and what an excellent example to prove my point 

edit to add the obvious difference in time management, one was said as a knee jerk reaction, the other one a planned timed lie to congress. Both bad , but one strategy and the other lifestyle 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Kismit  - words that will live  in infamy:    "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

Tata, Kis.

I actually just recently read an interesting point of view regarding this.

He was asked the question with the term 'sexual relations', he then asked them to define this term. He was told 'genital to genital' was how they were defining 'sexual relations'. We now know he received oral, but didn't have full sex. Thanks to a bit of lawyering, when he said those infamous words that you just misquoted, he wasn't actually lying under oath. He actually didn't have 'sexual relations' with her, as they had defined it.

I had no idea this was the case until a couple of weeks ago. I'm guessing most people still don't know this.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I actually just recently read an interesting point of view regarding this.

He was asked the question with the term 'sexual relations', he then asked them to define this term. He was told 'genital to genital' was how they were defining 'sexual relations'. We now know he received oral, but didn't have full sex. Thanks to a bit of lawyering, when he said those infamous words that you just misquoted, he wasn't actually lying under oath. He actually didn't have 'sexual relations' with her, as they had defined it.

I had no idea this was the case until a couple of weeks ago. I'm guessing most people still don't know this.

How do you know?

Besides, ppl felt LIED to.  That's what counts

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.