Trump II

[Alan Klein]

wisdom and competency would help, too

Obama had zero experience and wisdom in running anything.  He was a community organizer in Chicago and was Senator for around two years before starting to run for president.   He had no executive experience.  Your hatred of Trump doesn't allow you to see any of his experience as if creating a $3.5 billion empire is the work of a dummy.  Sure he can be at times brash, nasty, grumpy, argumentative, a bull-in-a-China shop.  But to argue he doesn't have wisdom and competency is just silly.  How do you think he became president?  To think that you're dealing with an incompetent fool is, well, foolhardy of you and similar thinking opponents.

[LesPalenik]

He didn't win because he was smart, he won because his opponent wasn't popular

[Alan Klein]

He didn't win because he was smart, he won because his opponent wasn't popular

Les, long before Hillary, he first beat the entire Republican line-up during the nomination process.  Experienced politicians some with lots more money spent.  He had the entire Republican establishment against him.  When it came to Hillary, she should have won by a mile.  But he figured out the jobs issue in the rust belt while all the political savants on both sides of the aisle were out-to-lunch.  They were busy reading tea leaves. laughing at him (like now) and watching the phony polls.  Come on.  Give credit where's it's due even if you don't like him. 

[LesPalenik]

You are right, Alan, he outsmarted all his opponents.
He was smart enough to win the elections, but not to lead the most advanced and most powerful country.
Great accomplishment for Trump, but poor outlook for USA and the rest of the world.

[JKoerner007]

The irony is Trump is the most "unpresidential" president we have ever had.

No class, no dignity, no moral compass.

If we hold The Founding Fathers as our compass (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin) ... how do you think these gentlemen would suffer such a boor as Trump?

Jefferson was a scientist at heart. Franklin was also.

How does anyone think Lincoln would view Trump?

Two Lincoln quotes provide the answer this question:

• "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before even in the midst of war.."

• "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not a friend of our country. He serves only himself: his ego, his prejudices, self-interests.

If ever there was an amoral man, who could NOT be trusted to uphold even the most basic precept of loyalty or human dignity, if there was a financial incentive in the way, it is Trump.

Patriots who hold the original ideal of this country as a reference point cannot support Trump: he represents the antithesis of the American ideal.

[Alan Klein]

He is leading.   Just not the way you like.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Uh, oh... Jack entered the fray! This thread won't last much longer

P.S. Hi Jack

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Les, long before Hillary, he first beat the entire Republican line-up during the nomination process.

Which also said something about what the Republican party had to offer, apparently not much.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Attorneys general to sue over foreign payments to Trump hotels: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN1930AL

"The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to file a lawsuit on Monday alleging that foreign payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violated the U.S. Constitution, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Trump already faces a similar lawsuit brought in January by plaintiffs including an ethics nonprofit group.

However, the case from two Democratic attorneys general could stand a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the Constitution's so-called emoluments clause.

Democratic attorneys general have taken a lead role in challenging Trump policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. They are also resisting efforts to roll back environmental regulations and insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act".


And this could all have been easily avoided had Trump properly disentangled his function from his business endeavors. It's just another self-inflicted distraction from more important tasks still on the table.

The same goes for this, a charity for sick children paid the Trump Organization to use its properties, and the payments were also higher than usual, instead of a free charity:

New York attorney general looking at Eric Trump charity's payouts

"New York's attorney general is looking into a report that the Eric Trump Foundation funneled more than $1 million from charity golf tournaments into President Donald Trump's business, a spokesman for the attorney general said on Friday.

Forbes magazine reported this week that the charity run by Eric Trump, the president's second-oldest son, paid the Trump Organization to use its properties for charity events in recent years even though Eric Trump had told donors that the golf course and other assets were being used for free, so that just about all the money donated would help sick children.

Forbes reported that based on filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, more than $1.2 million "has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization." "

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Which also said something about what the Republican party had to offer, apparently not much.

Cheers,
Bart

It was the Democrat party that didn't offer much - just Hillary and Bernie.  There may have been two others, but I don't recall. And Hillary had the fix in with the Democratic National Party as the Russians revealed.

The Republican Party list was very substantial and included many political heavyweights.  9 current or former governors (one of them, Bush,  who was also the son and brother of two former presidents), a woman CEO, 6 current and former US Senators, a black neurosurgeon, and of course Trump, a businessman who never held political office.  Trump also had the entire Republican establishment against him not only during the nomination but during the general election against Hillary.  He won with a small staff and 1/3 of the money spent.  It made Brexit look like a walk in the park.  Frankly, I had other favorites early in the process.  But he won the day. 

Here's the list:  Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida (brother and son of former Presidents), neurosurgeon Ben Carson of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, businesswoman Carly Fiorina of Virginia, Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, Former Governor George Pataki of New York, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Former Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, businessman Donald Trump of New York, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

[Alan Klein]

Attorneys general to sue over foreign payments to Trump hotels: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN1930AL

"The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to file a lawsuit on Monday alleging that foreign payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violated the U.S. Constitution, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Trump already faces a similar lawsuit brought in January by plaintiffs including an ethics nonprofit group.

However, the case from two Democratic attorneys general could stand a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the Constitution's so-called emoluments clause.

Democratic attorneys general have taken a lead role in challenging Trump policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. They are also resisting efforts to roll back environmental regulations and insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act".


And this could all have been easily avoided had Trump properly disentangled his function from his business endeavors. It's just another self-inflicted distraction from more important tasks still on the table.

The same goes for this, a charity for sick children paid the Trump Organization to use its properties, and the payments were also higher than usual, instead of a free charity:

New York attorney general looking at Eric Trump charity's payouts

"New York's attorney general is looking into a report that the Eric Trump Foundation funneled more than $1 million from charity golf tournaments into President Donald Trump's business, a spokesman for the attorney general said on Friday.

Forbes magazine reported this week that the charity run by Eric Trump, the president's second-oldest son, paid the Trump Organization to use its properties for charity events in recent years even though Eric Trump had told donors that the golf course and other assets were being used for free, so that just about all the money donated would help sick children.

Forbes reported that based on filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, more than $1.2 million "has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization." "

Cheers,
Bart

The Constitution and US law does not prevent a President from making money from his businesses or having to sell them to be president or even recuse himself from controlling them during his presidency.  Therefore, I don't see how earnings from those businesses could be considered an emolument.  Basically, payments are to purchase goods or services.  An emolument is more of a gift that could be considered a bribe. 

If the Supreme rules against Trump, then in the future, any businessman who has a company doing business overseas would not be eligible to be president.  He have to sell his companies.  The Constitution does not say that.  I can't imagine the Court ruling that way.   But it's going to be an interesting case regardless. 

[Otto Phocus]

Congress can make this all go away simply by acknowledging and approving these transactions.

The "Emoluments Clause" of our constitution states:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

There is nothing preventing any person holding office from accepting these types of stuff.  They are just prohibited from accepting them without the consent of the Congress.  Since the GOP has a majority in both houses, and there is nothing that states that this consent requires a super majority, both houses can just vote on it and approve it.  Problem solved the constitutional way.

We could bypass any complicated argument whether what Trump is accepting is or ain't an Emolument.  If congress consents to it, it ain't no problem.   They should do this prior to any lawsuit.

This does raise an interesting question:  Why is a GOP controlled congress reluctant to do this?

[Robert Roaldi]

This does raise an interesting question:  Why is a GOP controlled congress reluctant to do this?

Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.

The spirit of that clause seems clear enough to me. They probably left in an "out" for unusual circumstances, which I would not have a problem with in general. But if starts to be used to regularly excuse profiteering, and people actually approve of this trend, well the term "banana republic" comes to mind. If this is not nipped in the bud, then the USA should stop preaching "freedom" and "democracy" to the rest of the world, unless the speeches come with laugh tracks.

Saying that Trump is "smart" for doing this is not an acceptable response to my way of thinking. The governance structures in our democratic cultures do not exist for the purpose of enriching the already powerful.

[Alan Klein]

Why would congress approve something that doesn't have to be approved.    You're assuming these are emoluments.
Let the courts decide first what the legal standing is.


But it still raises a fundamental problem.   If overseas and domestic businesses can be interpreted as an emolument, because foreign government can buy from them,  then a whole class of American citizens would be excluded from being president,  something I don't think the founders or we want. How could a citizen run for president having to hope that congress would ok his businesses especially if the majority in Congress was from the opposite party?  It would throw a wet blanket on American participation in their government.

The argument they're emoluments is silly anyway.   If prime Minister May decided to play a round of golf at Trump's Scottish golf course,  would the green fees be considered an emolument?

Heck, Jeff Schewe couldn't run until he sold his photo book business.   Someone could sue him claiming that a foreign government would buy them to influence his presidential decisions.   Where would the lawsuits end? 

Of course ttys only has to do with politics.   I didn't hear to many complaints when the Clintons were paid for speeches by foreign governments as a way for than to buy political influences.

[Otto Phocus]

Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.

I would agree with you on this.  I think the GOP is walking a very fine line, on egg shells, on top of a minefield, covered with thin ice (Did I miss any cliches?). 

[Alan Klein]

Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.

The spirit of that clause seems clear enough to me. They probably left in an "out" for unusual circumstances, which I would not have a problem with in general. But if starts to be used to regularly excuse profiteering, and people actually approve of this trend, well the term "banana republic" comes to mind. If this is not nipped in the bud, then the USA should stop preaching "freedom" and "democracy" to the rest of the world, unless the speeches come with laugh tracks.

Saying that Trump is "smart" for doing this is not an acceptable response to my way of thinking. The governance structures in our democratic cultures do not exist for the purpose of enriching the already powerful.

  The voters knew when they voted for Trump that he had these businesses.  In fact,  that's why most voted for him.   They are hoping he can transfer his personal business experience to help all of America.

 If Trump or his family use the presidents position  to profit,  they can vote him out of office in 2020.  Remember,  the constitution also prevents him from taking a bribe.   So impeachment is viable in that case.

[Otto Phocus]

I didn't hear to many complaints when the Clintons were paid for speeches by foreign governments as a way for than to buy political influences.

Who are you kidding?  As much time as you evidently spend on Right Wing sites?  And you did not read of any complaints???  That's all they did was complain.

[Schewe]

Heck, Jeff Schewe couldn't run until he sold his photo book business.   Someone could sue him claiming that a foreign government would buy them to influence his presidential decisions.

I don't want the job but if I did I would put my company and assets in a blind trust which is what other presidents have done and something Trump promised to do a could of years ago (I think it was about the time that Romney was running). But Trump has said a LOT of things which are proven to be untrue like he said he would release his tax returns and Obama was born in Kenya...

In case you are wondering about how much Trump lies, this article is scathing...

TRUMP: A TRUE STORY

The mogul, in a 2007 deposition, had to face up to a series of falsehoods and exaggerations. And he did. Sort of.

The lawyer gave Donald Trump a note, written in Trump’s own handwriting. He asked Trump to read it aloud.

Trump may not have realized it yet, but he had walked into a trap.

“Peter, you’re a real loser,” Trump began reading.

The mogul had sent the note to a reporter, objecting to a story that said Trump owned a “small minority stake” in a Manhattan real estate project. Trump insisted that the word “small” was incorrect. Trump continued reading: “I wrote, ‘Is 50 percent small?’ ”

“This [note] was intended to indicate that you had a 50 percent stake in the project, correct?” said the lawyer.

“That’s correct,” Trump said.

For the first of many times that day, Trump was about to be caught saying something that wasn’t true.

Liars lie even when they don't have to...in Trump's case, he simply can't help himself...which sucks for him when he's caught in a lie.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another U.S. appeals court rules against Trump's revised travel ban
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling-court-idUSKBN19321K

"A second U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court's decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump's order. The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking parts of the order.

The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.

Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening. Watson also blocked a directive that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days, as well as other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.

The 9th Circuit on Monday upheld the block on Trump's travel ban and a cap on refugees. However, the appeals court vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting."

[Robert Roaldi]

  The voters knew when they voted for Trump that he had these businesses.  In fact,  that's why most voted for him.   They are hoping he can transfer his personal business experience to help all of America.

 If Trump or his family use the presidents position  to profit,  they can vote him out of office in 2020.  Remember,  the constitution also prevents him from taking a bribe.   So impeachment is viable in that case.

I doubt that they voted for him because of his so-called business acumen. Anyway, the connection between any so-called business talent and national politics is tenuous. The ability to make money from a TV reality show is not much of a real measure of anything. I mean, I acknowledge that he did that better than I could, but that's no reason to vote him into any public service, at least not for me.

I don't believe that voting him out AFTER profiting from the position is credible behaviour for the president of the USA, especially given that he is already supposed to be really wealthy. I mean, that's setting the bar pretty low.

Also, I didn't quite understand the comment about the Clinton speaking fees mentioned above (not sure now who wrote it). They weren't in office at the time, were they? What they did might not have been squeaky clean, I know nothing about it, but it seems to be in a different category.