LadySkinsFan

The Trump Conflict of Interest Thread: Shearing the Sheep

368 posts in this topic

With Trump tweeting last night that everyone already knows about his conflicts of interest when they voted for him, it's no big deal. Only the media is making it a big deal, as the media should. I think it should be called out every time his business interests are favored due to the Presidency. I also expect the Democrats to at least get some legislation started to address this abuse of government. There is already a bill aimed at releasing tax returns for presidential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be the central issue of his Presidency. He is a businessman first and he will use the Presidency to enrich himself and his kids.

Oh the irony:

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd because at least publicly Bannon rails against crony capitalism, but he seems to have tied himself to an administration that is at least overtly looking to take an early lead among at least recent Presidents.

"Trump urged UK leader to oppose wind farm near his golf course: report"

Apparently coming from the British.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307146-trump-urged-farage-to-oppose-wind-farms-report

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any doubt that the American voter got conned:

A real man of the working people.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see this thread until now.  So far possible issues of interest that have come up involve Scotland, India, Argentina, and the Phillipines.

 

I'm curious what will come up about his properties/future properties in the Middle East.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one cares

"Numbers are confusing and they make my head hurt! All we need are more catchy slogans about Hillary!!"

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2016 at 6:26 PM, LadySkinsFan said:

Bull****! 

What a well thought out response.  your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Column written by a couple of guys who served under Reagan and Poppy on how its unrealistic for Trump to establish a blind trust.  Do they have a good point?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-unrealistic-and-unfair-to-make-trump-use-a-blind-trust/2016/11/22/a71aa1d4-b0c0-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.f947f626a84b

 

No, they don't have a good point.  Full disclosure, i went to law school with one of the author's sons.  I did not like him.  

Quote

Suggestions that President-elect Donald Trump put his business holdings in a “blind trust” to avoid potential conflicts of interest are unrealistic and unfair. Such a trust would not eliminate the virtual certainty that actions Trump takes as president will affect his personal wealth, for good or ill.

This is true, it wont eliminate that actions he takes "affects" his personal wealth.  His presidential decisions will "affect" EVERYONES personal wealth, he's going to be the ****ing President.  It will slightly deteriorate his ability to make presidential decisions on behalf of his business interests rather than on behalf of the American people, which he will be taking an oath to do.  So it's worth doing.

Quote

The step is not required by law.

Just because something isn't required by law doesn't mean there aren't really good reasons to do a thing.  God forbid Trump goes above and beyond the minimal standard of not breaking the ****ing law. 

 

Quote

 He can keep his holdings and adopt a reasonable system to avoid conflicts and reassure the American people that the Trump administration is acting ethically.

 

Theoretically, this is probably true.  Has Trump ever done anything in his life that leads people to believe he could actually do this, even if he wanted to .... which he pretty clearly doesn't.

 

Quote

To establish a blind trust of the sort used by his predecessors, Trump would not merely have to liquidate a securities portfolio and permit an independent trustee to manage those assets. He would have to sell off business holdings that he has built and managed most of his life, and with which he is personally identified in a way that few other business magnates are.

Nobody forced him to run for President.  Nobody is forcing to BE President.  It's the price of admission that literally every single one of his predecessor has been willing, EAGER, to pay.  This is another example of the rules not applying to Trump and his absolute willingness to be corrupt.....which is ironic considering that was his only line of attack against Clinton.  

Quote

These businesses also provide employment for many thousands of people, including his children. All of it would have to go.

 

The vast majority of those workers would continue, the only thing that would change would be the bank accounts their paychecks come from. It's not like Trump Lowes Island would disappear into the ether.  

 

 "Including his children"?????  Who gives a **** about 3 idiot kids of a billionaire, they'll seriously be just ****ing fine. 

I can keep going and murder every single sentence.  I don't think that's necessary.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^ I like this call and response so much. 

Especially the part saying that Trump didn't have to run for office.

That's why we have professional politicians.

Share this post


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

Just because something isn't required by law doesn't mean there aren't really good reasons to do a thing.  God forbid Trump goes above and beyond the minimal standard of not breaking the ****ing law. 

Exactly

There is such a thing a avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, a basic concept so hard to ignore or argue that you shouldn't have to have a law specific to it. Hell, I don't have a sign in my livingroom that says "Please Do Not **** On The Rug" but I'm gonna be pretty damn unhappy if you stop by and do it.

Trump could easily address this, easily take measures that wouldn't require him to dismantle his businesses, the problem is he doesn't care. His default setting is that smug condescension that rules don't apply to him at all, period.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big problem up there with Trump's conflicts and his unwillingness to divorce himself:

Businesses in India: 16

Businesses in Pakistan: 0

 

Both have nukes.  Both hate each other.

We've managed to mostly be the adult in their hateful sibling relationship, but if Trump keeps involving his business interests in how he handles the Presidency, that will really raise tensions in the region, needlessly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep saying we are charting into unknown water because Trump is a businessman. Well, as I recall George W. Bush owned the Texas Rangers and multiple Presidents have run businesses before Trump. Many Congressmen were successful in business prior to going into public office. So no, this is not novel territory. What's novel is the degree of abuse and unwillingness or unpreparedness to do anything about it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like his quote: "The President can't have a conflict of interest." 

Wrong!  Congress exempted the President from conflict of interest laws.  However, if it is clear a President is enriching himself, at the expense of public policy, we have to trust that Congress can still impeach him. 

Sure, a Trump-freindly Republican Congress won't, but a Trump hostile Dem Congress could.

I am just at the wait and see phase to be honest, it can't really be much worse than Bush years... personally I an biased that Dems run the govt in a way more reasonable manner... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

I am just at the wait and see phase to be honest, it can't really be much worse than Bush years

 

 

Nazis literally threw a party at Maggianos celebrating Trumps win. This can be so much worse than the Bush years. 

 

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/food/article/20844314/maggianos-little-italy-apologizes-after-hosting-white-nationalist-dinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what world is an Asian porn star a proponent for a white power hate group, and giving a Nazi salute?  She is absurdly stupid.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

In what world is an Asian porn star a proponent for a white power hate group, and giving a Nazi salute?  She is absurdly stupid.

 

Welcome to 2016. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall some of the alt-right/supremacist folks saying that Asians are at the superior end of the spectrum right above whites.  No idea how that plays out though or if it's widely believed.

Edited by visionary

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.