Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Trump Will Donate Hotel Profits From Foreign Governments To US Treasury
24 views
Skip to first unread message
burfordTjustice
Jan 12, 2017, 6:42:26 AM1/12/17
to
An attorney for President-elect Donald Trump said at a press conference Wednesday that profits from foreign governments at Trump Organization hotels will be donated to the United States Treasury.
Trump’s attorney Sheri Dillon addressed the emoluments clause of the Constitution which prohibits anyone holding office from receiving a gift from “any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
“The so-called emoluments clause has never been interpreted to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an office holder. No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead it would have been thought of as a value or an exchange, not a gift, not a title, and not an emolument,” Dillon, an attorney at Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, said.
She added, “But since President-elect Trump has been elected, some people want to define emoluments to cover routine business transactions, like paying for hotel rooms. These people are wrong.”
She said that the Constitution doesn’t require Trump to change anything to comply with this clause but “just like with conflicts of interests, he wants to do more than what the constitution requires.”
“President-elect Trump decided and we are announcing today he’ll voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury. This way, it is the American people who will profit,” Dillon said.
Trump’s attorney Sheri Dillon addressed the emoluments clause of the Constitution which prohibits anyone holding office from receiving a gift from “any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
“The so-called emoluments clause has never been interpreted to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an office holder. No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead it would have been thought of as a value or an exchange, not a gift, not a title, and not an emolument,” Dillon, an attorney at Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, said.
She added, “But since President-elect Trump has been elected, some people want to define emoluments to cover routine business transactions, like paying for hotel rooms. These people are wrong.”
She said that the Constitution doesn’t require Trump to change anything to comply with this clause but “just like with conflicts of interests, he wants to do more than what the constitution requires.”
“President-elect Trump decided and we are announcing today he’ll voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury. This way, it is the American people who will profit,” Dillon said.
Taxed and Spent
Jan 12, 2017, 7:41:31 AM1/12/17
to
Elias
Jan 12, 2017, 9:54:55 AM1/12/17
to
Wy not "gross income" instead, which I think is mush less likely to be
manipulated.
burfordTjustice
Jan 12, 2017, 9:58:50 AM1/12/17
to
He is not required to give any.
How much do you give?
trader_4
Jan 12, 2017, 10:54:58 AM1/12/17
to
so many of us predicted, Trump has done very little to eliminate
conflicts of interest. He will still own his worldwide empire
with all the conflict of interest that comes with it. Forgoing
the "profit" on foreign officials who stay at his hotel does little
to solve anything. The govt itself doesn't have to be paying for
the rooms. These foreign govts have all kinds of friends, businesses
that could funnel money into Trump's hotels or other businesses
without it coming from a foreign govt directly.
But even that is the tip of the iceberg. It's not hard to see far
bigger issues. Say there is a terrorist attack on a Trump property?
Will he respond the same way as if it was not his property? Suppose
a country gets into financial or military trouble and Trump owns
properties there? The list is endless.
Muggles
Jan 12, 2017, 12:23:34 PM1/12/17
to
On 1/12/2017 9:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:54:55 AM UTC-5, Elias wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:41:30 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>> <nospam...@nonospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/2017 3:42 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
>>>> An attorney for President-elect Donald Trump said at a press conference Wednesday that profits from foreign governments at Trump Organization hotels will be donated to the United States Treasury.
>>>>
>>>> Trump’s attorney Sheri Dillon addressed the emoluments clause of the Constitution which prohibits anyone holding office from receiving a gift from “any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
>>>>
>>>> “The so-called emoluments clause has never been interpreted to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an office holder. No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead it would have been thought of as a value or an exchange, not a gift, not a title, and not an emolument,” Dillon, an attorney at Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, said.
>>>>
>>>> She added, “But since President-elect Trump has been elected, some people want to define emoluments to cover routine business transactions, like paying for hotel rooms. These people are wrong.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She said that the Constitution doesn’t require Trump to change anything to comply with this clause but “just like with conflicts of interests, he wants to do more than what the constitution requires.”
>>>>
>>>> “President-elect Trump decided and we are announcing today he’ll voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury. This way, it is the American people who will profit,” Dillon said.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupid. He should donate it to school voucher programs.
>>
>> Why only "profits"? Trump and family can manipulate that endlessly.
>> Wy not "gross income" instead, which I think is mush less likely to be
>> manipulated.
> This whole thing is just a tiny nit. The real problem is that, as
> so many of us predicted, Trump has done very little to eliminate
> conflicts of interest.
Trump isn't under ANY obligation legally to do anything about any
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:54:55 AM UTC-5, Elias wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:41:30 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>> <nospam...@nonospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/2017 3:42 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
>>>> An attorney for President-elect Donald Trump said at a press conference Wednesday that profits from foreign governments at Trump Organization hotels will be donated to the United States Treasury.
>>>>
>>>> Trump’s attorney Sheri Dillon addressed the emoluments clause of the Constitution which prohibits anyone holding office from receiving a gift from “any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
>>>>
>>>> “The so-called emoluments clause has never been interpreted to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an office holder. No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead it would have been thought of as a value or an exchange, not a gift, not a title, and not an emolument,” Dillon, an attorney at Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, said.
>>>>
>>>> She added, “But since President-elect Trump has been elected, some people want to define emoluments to cover routine business transactions, like paying for hotel rooms. These people are wrong.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She said that the Constitution doesn’t require Trump to change anything to comply with this clause but “just like with conflicts of interests, he wants to do more than what the constitution requires.”
>>>>
>>>> “President-elect Trump decided and we are announcing today he’ll voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury. This way, it is the American people who will profit,” Dillon said.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupid. He should donate it to school voucher programs.
>>
>> Why only "profits"? Trump and family can manipulate that endlessly.
>> Wy not "gross income" instead, which I think is mush less likely to be
>> manipulated.
> This whole thing is just a tiny nit. The real problem is that, as
> so many of us predicted, Trump has done very little to eliminate
> conflicts of interest.
business conflicts of interest. Despite that, he is doing what he feels
he can do without damaging his brand, selling it to someone else, or
risking the profitability and jobs of his brand.
Get over it.
--
Maggie
trader_4
Jan 12, 2017, 1:49:35 PM1/12/17
to
clause of the constitution. And Trump will have unprecedented conflicts
of interest. Expect many challenges, issues raised, court cases.
And it doesn't change the fact that he lied when running, promising
to completely remove himself from his business interests. Now, it's
clear, as I and others predicted, that was just another Trump lie.
Of course if the Clintons were doing the, well, my oh my, it would be
the worst thing ever. But, heh, all hail King Trump!
Muggles
Jan 12, 2017, 3:09:31 PM1/12/17
to
> Actually, he is under some obligation legally, per the emoluments
> clause of the constitution. And Trump will have unprecedented conflicts
> of interest. Expect many challenges, issues raised, court cases.
> And it doesn't change the fact that he lied when running, promising
> to completely remove himself from his business interests. Now, it's
> clear, as I and others predicted, that was just another Trump lie.
He hasn't lied. He IS removing himself from his business interests, and
> clause of the constitution. And Trump will have unprecedented conflicts
> of interest. Expect many challenges, issues raised, court cases.
> And it doesn't change the fact that he lied when running, promising
> to completely remove himself from his business interests. Now, it's
> clear, as I and others predicted, that was just another Trump lie.
putting his sons in charge of those.
> Of course if the Clintons were doing the, well, my oh my, it would be
> the worst thing ever. But, heh, all hail King Trump!
>
--
Maggie
trader_4
Jan 12, 2017, 3:17:51 PM1/12/17
to
eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
trust manager obviously either.
>
> > Of course if the Clintons were doing the, well, my oh my, it would be
> > the worst thing ever. But, heh, all hail King Trump!
> >
>
> The Clinton's LOST. Woohooo!!
>
Muggles
Jan 12, 2017, 3:25:00 PM1/12/17
to
to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
> Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
> are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
> all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
> trust manager obviously either.
business and I see no problem with Trump putting his sons in charge and
Trump returning to his business after he's no longer president.
--
Maggie
trader_4
Jan 12, 2017, 3:55:57 PM1/12/17
to
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>
> > ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> > eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> > means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> > their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> > actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> > accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>
> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
>
>
> > ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> > eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> > means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> > their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> > actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> > accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>
> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
>
> JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
> has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
>
Clintons all put their investments into blind trusts. Stop spinning.
> > Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
> > are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
> > all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
> > trust manager obviously either.
>
> They don't NEED to be an independent blind trust manager! It's a family
> business and I see no problem with Trump putting his sons in charge and
> Trump returning to his business after he's no longer president.
>
>
> --
> Maggie
who's had way too much Koolaid. And ROFL laughing about the "family
business" part, as if it's a hardware store.
PS: Can't you Trumpets learn to trim posts?
gfre...@aol.com
Jan 12, 2017, 5:08:07 PM1/12/17
to
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>
>Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
>are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
>all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
>trust manager obviously either.
>
That is certainly the current policy but it has not been true for that
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>
>Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
>are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
>all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
>trust manager obviously either.
>
long and it is still a little shaky that there is really a legal
obligation to do so.
I understand the idea of the hint on impropriety but bear in mind
George Washington prosecuted members of the whiskey rebellion
(moonshiners) during the time that he was the largest legal distiller
in the US. Today we would question whether this was an attempt to
protect the revenue base from the whiskey tax or just a way to crush
the competition ;-)
Trump just happens to be the first successful businessman to take the
White House in about a century. The rest may have been rich but it was
from "money making money" or old money from a rich family. Although
she eventually sold it later, Kerry's wife was the ketchup queen
selling condiments all over the world when he ran and that was never
brought up. I bet more people world wide know the name Heinz than
Trump until very recently.
I have been saying all along, Trump is going to have a hard time being
Trump and being president and given the hard choice, he might resign.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2017, 5:24:17 PM1/12/17
to
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >
> >Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
> >are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
> >all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
> >trust manager obviously either.
> >
>
> That is certainly the current policy but it has not been true for that
> long and it is still a little shaky that there is really a legal
> obligation to do so.
I agree there likely isn't a legal obligation to do it. The only
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >
> >Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
> >are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
> >all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
> >trust manager obviously either.
> >
>
> That is certainly the current policy but it has not been true for that
> long and it is still a little shaky that there is really a legal
> obligation to do so.
thing that applies is the emolument clause and whether that was intended
to mean that a president can't do a fair market transaction with a
foreign govt, hasn't be tested.
> I understand the idea of the hint on impropriety but bear in mind
> George Washington prosecuted members of the whiskey rebellion
> (moonshiners) during the time that he was the largest legal distiller
> in the US. Today we would question whether this was an attempt to
> protect the revenue base from the whiskey tax or just a way to crush
> the competition ;-)
>
> Trump just happens to be the first successful businessman to take the
> White House in about a century. The rest may have been rich but it was
> from "money making money" or old money from a rich family. Although
> she eventually sold it later, Kerry's wife was the ketchup queen
> selling condiments all over the world when he ran and that was never
> brought up. I bet more people world wide know the name Heinz than
> Trump until very recently.
> I have been saying all along, Trump is going to have a hard time being
> Trump and being president and given the hard choice, he might resign.
between the two. I think what he's gotten himself into has not sunk in
yet and when it does, who knows what will happen. He could resign or go
totally bananas, more so than he is now. All the issues, especially all
the promises he made, would totally
consume any man. And how he negotiates his way with Congress, the GOP,
Democrats, etc remains to be seen. The first big test will be Obamacare
and there is no answer possible that delivers what Trump promised. It's
a minefield and at worst, Trump and the GOP leave 20 mil people with no
insurance. That seems to be perfectly fine with many of the Trumpets.
gfre...@aol.com
Jan 12, 2017, 7:53:27 PM1/12/17
to
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:24:14 -0800 (PST), trader_4
There have certainly been plenty of cases where families of government
officials benefitted from foreign governments. You really do not have
to back much farther than SoS Clinton.
>
>> I understand the idea of the hint on impropriety but bear in mind
>> George Washington prosecuted members of the whiskey rebellion
>> (moonshiners) during the time that he was the largest legal distiller
>> in the US. Today we would question whether this was an attempt to
>> protect the revenue base from the whiskey tax or just a way to crush
>> the competition ;-)
>>
>> Trump just happens to be the first successful businessman to take the
>> White House in about a century. The rest may have been rich but it was
>> from "money making money" or old money from a rich family. Although
>> she eventually sold it later, Kerry's wife was the ketchup queen
>> selling condiments all over the world when he ran and that was never
>> brought up. I bet more people world wide know the name Heinz than
>> Trump until very recently.
>> I have been saying all along, Trump is going to have a hard time being
>> Trump and being president and given the hard choice, he might resign.
>
>So far, he gets away with everything and he hasn't had to make a choice
>between the two.
He is still a private citizen
>I think what he's gotten himself into has not sunk in
>yet and when it does, who knows what will happen. He could resign or go
>totally bananas, more so than he is now. All the issues, especially all
>the promises he made, would totally
>consume any man. And how he negotiates his way with Congress, the GOP,
>Democrats, etc remains to be seen. The first big test will be Obamacare
>and there is no answer possible that delivers what Trump promised. It's
>a minefield and at worst, Trump and the GOP leave 20 mil people with no
>insurance. That seems to be perfectly fine with many of the Trumpets.
It will take a lot more to dismantle that beast than a simple up down
vote on a repeal bill. To start with, because the way bills are
written, they will have to go back and restore every line in the
various laws that were changed and each line of that bill will be
subject to debate because the senate democrats have enough votes to
block cloture. Most of the newly "insured" were actually simply put on
medicaid. Changing that eligibility is certain to start the first
fight.
If they really want to fix this, they should start with the new law
before they touch the old one. Maybe open with buying insurance across
state lines.
If they want to expand medicare, look at the "Advantage" model. That
is the dreaded "privatization" and I have been on it for almost 5
years. Seems OK to me. I do not use Medicare at all.
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>> >eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>> >means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>> >their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>> >actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>> >accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>> >
>> >Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
>> >are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
>> >all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
>> >trust manager obviously either.
>> >
>>
>> That is certainly the current policy but it has not been true for that
>> long and it is still a little shaky that there is really a legal
>> obligation to do so.
>
>I agree there likely isn't a legal obligation to do it. The only
>thing that applies is the emolument clause and whether that was intended
>to mean that a president can't do a fair market transaction with a
>foreign govt, hasn't be tested.
The whole issue has really never been tested
>On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>> >eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>> >means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>> >their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>> >actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>> >accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>> >
>> >Trump will obviously know exactly where all his business interests
>> >are, they aren't changing and as such, will have the potential for
>> >all kinds of conflicts. And his sons are not an independent blind
>> >trust manager obviously either.
>> >
>>
>> That is certainly the current policy but it has not been true for that
>> long and it is still a little shaky that there is really a legal
>> obligation to do so.
>
>I agree there likely isn't a legal obligation to do it. The only
>thing that applies is the emolument clause and whether that was intended
>to mean that a president can't do a fair market transaction with a
>foreign govt, hasn't be tested.
There have certainly been plenty of cases where families of government
officials benefitted from foreign governments. You really do not have
to back much farther than SoS Clinton.
>
>> I understand the idea of the hint on impropriety but bear in mind
>> George Washington prosecuted members of the whiskey rebellion
>> (moonshiners) during the time that he was the largest legal distiller
>> in the US. Today we would question whether this was an attempt to
>> protect the revenue base from the whiskey tax or just a way to crush
>> the competition ;-)
>>
>> Trump just happens to be the first successful businessman to take the
>> White House in about a century. The rest may have been rich but it was
>> from "money making money" or old money from a rich family. Although
>> she eventually sold it later, Kerry's wife was the ketchup queen
>> selling condiments all over the world when he ran and that was never
>> brought up. I bet more people world wide know the name Heinz than
>> Trump until very recently.
>> I have been saying all along, Trump is going to have a hard time being
>> Trump and being president and given the hard choice, he might resign.
>
>So far, he gets away with everything and he hasn't had to make a choice
>between the two.
>I think what he's gotten himself into has not sunk in
>yet and when it does, who knows what will happen. He could resign or go
>totally bananas, more so than he is now. All the issues, especially all
>the promises he made, would totally
>consume any man. And how he negotiates his way with Congress, the GOP,
>Democrats, etc remains to be seen. The first big test will be Obamacare
>and there is no answer possible that delivers what Trump promised. It's
>a minefield and at worst, Trump and the GOP leave 20 mil people with no
>insurance. That seems to be perfectly fine with many of the Trumpets.
vote on a repeal bill. To start with, because the way bills are
written, they will have to go back and restore every line in the
various laws that were changed and each line of that bill will be
subject to debate because the senate democrats have enough votes to
block cloture. Most of the newly "insured" were actually simply put on
medicaid. Changing that eligibility is certain to start the first
fight.
If they really want to fix this, they should start with the new law
before they touch the old one. Maybe open with buying insurance across
state lines.
If they want to expand medicare, look at the "Advantage" model. That
is the dreaded "privatization" and I have been on it for almost 5
years. Seems OK to me. I do not use Medicare at all.
Vic Smith
Jan 12, 2017, 8:01:59 PM1/12/17
to
#NoDAPL
Jan 12, 2017, 8:25:55 PM1/12/17
to
today as it was yesterday,
gfre...@aol.com
Jan 12, 2017, 10:42:22 PM1/12/17
to
"contributions" in a far more efficient way in a private system than
if I let them manage my health care in government managed Medicare.
Medicare part A, a gap policy and a "D" policy that duplicates my
Advantage policy would cost me over $1000 a year more than I pay.
Muggles
Jan 12, 2017, 11:51:38 PM1/12/17
to
On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>>
>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>>
>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
with?? It's the law.
>>
>> JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
>> has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
> It's not a liberal versus conservative thing. JFK, Reagan, Bushs,
> Clintons all put their investments into blind trusts. Stop spinning.
the Bushes, and the Clinton's jumped off a bridge.
He's not required to do anything.
--
Maggie
Roger Blake
Jan 13, 2017, 12:58:06 PM1/13/17
to
On 2017-01-13, Muggles <coun...@2valentines.day> wrote:
> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> with?? It's the law.
Liberals don't care about laws. All they care about is pushing their
> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> with?? It's the law.
demented agenda at all costs. Had criminal Hillary been elected they
would be putting the country on the fast track to perdition. Thank
goodness Trump was elected, along with a Republican majority, to
derail the Left's plans.
Liberals are some of the most hateful, bigoted people you'll ever
meet when they are dealing with anyone who disagrees with them.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
trader_4
Jan 13, 2017, 1:30:50 PM1/13/17
to
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >>
> >> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> >> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> >> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> >> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
>
> > To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> > many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
>
> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> with?? It's the law.
>
Why don't you understand that isn't the question you asked? You
> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >>
> >> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> >> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> >> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> >> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
>
> > To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> > many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
>
> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> with?? It's the law.
>
asked why *should he*.
> >>
> >> JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
> >> has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
>
>
> > It's not a liberal versus conservative thing. JFK, Reagan, Bushs,
> > Clintons all put their investments into blind trusts. Stop spinning.
>
> So?? Trump doesn't have to jump off a bridge just because JFK, Reagan,
> the Bushes, and the Clinton's jumped off a bridge.
>
interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
> He's not required to do anything.
>
trader_4
Jan 13, 2017, 1:32:51 PM1/13/17
to
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:58:06 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2017-01-13, Muggles <coun...@2valentines.day> wrote:
> > What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> > with?? It's the law.
>
> Liberals don't care about laws. All they care about is pushing their
> demented agenda at all costs. Had criminal Hillary been elected they
> would be putting the country on the fast track to perdition. Thank
> goodness Trump was elected, along with a Republican majority, to
> derail the Left's plans.
>
> Liberals are some of the most hateful, bigoted people you'll ever
> meet when they are dealing with anyone who disagrees with them.
>
Again, the typical Trumpet ad hominem attack. Instead of addressint
> On 2017-01-13, Muggles <coun...@2valentines.day> wrote:
> > What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> > with?? It's the law.
>
> Liberals don't care about laws. All they care about is pushing their
> demented agenda at all costs. Had criminal Hillary been elected they
> would be putting the country on the fast track to perdition. Thank
> goodness Trump was elected, along with a Republican majority, to
> derail the Left's plans.
>
> Liberals are some of the most hateful, bigoted people you'll ever
> meet when they are dealing with anyone who disagrees with them.
>
the specific issue, they deflect. And in this case, it's absurd,
because I'm a conservative. For some reason, the Trumpets can't
get it through their head that many conservatives have major issues
with Trump, from his love of Russia, to his conflicts of interest
and lying.
Muggles
Jan 13, 2017, 10:24:17 PM1/13/17
to
On 1/13/2017 11:56 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2017-01-13, Muggles <coun...@2valentines.day> wrote:
>> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
>> with?? It's the law.
>
> Liberals don't care about laws. All they care about is pushing their
> demented agenda at all costs. Had criminal Hillary been elected they
> would be putting the country on the fast track to perdition. Thank
> goodness Trump was elected, along with a Republican majority, to
> derail the Left's plans.
>
> Liberals are some of the most hateful, bigoted people you'll ever
> meet when they are dealing with anyone who disagrees with them.
>
It sure comes across that way!
> On 2017-01-13, Muggles <coun...@2valentines.day> wrote:
>> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
>> with?? It's the law.
>
> Liberals don't care about laws. All they care about is pushing their
> demented agenda at all costs. Had criminal Hillary been elected they
> would be putting the country on the fast track to perdition. Thank
> goodness Trump was elected, along with a Republican majority, to
> derail the Left's plans.
>
> Liberals are some of the most hateful, bigoted people you'll ever
> meet when they are dealing with anyone who disagrees with them.
>
--
Maggie
Muggles
Jan 13, 2017, 10:27:58 PM1/13/17
to
On 1/13/2017 12:30 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>>>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>>>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>>>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>>>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>>>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>>>>
>>>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
>>>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
>>>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
>>>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
>>
>>> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
>>> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
>>
>> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
>> with?? It's the law.
>
> Why don't you understand that isn't the question you asked? You
> asked why *should he*.
You're kidding, right? Would you jump through a zillion red-tape loops
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
>>>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
>>>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
>>>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
>>>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
>>>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
>>>>
>>>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
>>>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
>>>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
>>>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
>>
>>> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
>>> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
>>
>> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
>> with?? It's the law.
>
> Why don't you understand that isn't the question you asked? You
> asked why *should he*.
if you DIDN'T HAVE TOO??? geez
>>>>
>>>> JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
>>>> has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
>>
>>
>>> It's not a liberal versus conservative thing. JFK, Reagan, Bushs,
>>> Clintons all put their investments into blind trusts. Stop spinning.
>>
>> So?? Trump doesn't have to jump off a bridge just because JFK, Reagan,
>> the Bushes, and the Clinton's jumped off a bridge.
> They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
long check out line at the grocery store JUST because you see everyone
else doing it, too? I don't. I go looking for the self-check out lane
that I can just walk up to with no waiting.
IOW, Trump is under NO obligation to do anything just because someone
else did it before him.
--
Maggie
gfre...@aol.com
Jan 14, 2017, 11:14:27 AM1/14/17
to
that seems to be where Trump is if he just turns the business over to
Ivanka. Teddy continued to benefit from the Kennedy family trust until
he died while still serving in the senate. It was far from "blind".
trader_4
Jan 14, 2017, 11:37:17 AM1/14/17
to
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:27:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> On 1/13/2017 12:30 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >>>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >>>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >>>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >>>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >>>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> >>>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> >>>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> >>>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
> >>
> >>> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> >>> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> >> with?? It's the law.
>
>
> >
> > Why don't you understand that isn't the question you asked? You
> > asked why *should he*.
>
> You're kidding, right? Would you jump through a zillion red-tape loops
> if you DIDN'T HAVE TOO??? geez
>
Yes, I would, because I love the country and respect it, just like
> On 1/13/2017 12:30 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >> On 1/12/2017 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ROFL. Only a Trumpet could buy that fairy tale. Other presidents,
> >>>>> eg Clinton, Bush, Reagan, put their assets into blind trusts. That
> >>>>> means whatever they were invested in was sold, a trustee then put
> >>>>> their money into investments. Those presidents did not know what
> >>>>> actual investments were in their portfolio. That way, no one could
> >>>>> accuse them of favoring Apple over Ford, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> So? Trump doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin with, and he's entitled
> >>>> to do it differently if he so chooses. His business will be there
> >>>> waiting for him when he's done with 8 years as president. Why should he
> >>>> have to sell it just to satisfy critiques??
> >>
> >>> To show that he's fair, impartial, honest and moral and to avoid the
> >>> many problems and controversies he's going to wind up in if he doesn't.
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about he doesn't HAVE to do anything to begin
> >> with?? It's the law.
>
>
> >
> > Why don't you understand that isn't the question you asked? You
> > asked why *should he*.
>
> You're kidding, right? Would you jump through a zillion red-tape loops
> if you DIDN'T HAVE TOO??? geez
>
JFK, Clinton, Reagan, Bushs. They all used blind trusts. And again,
that isn't the question you asked. You asked why should Trump put
his assets in a blind trust. The reasons are to avoid conflicts
of interest, to put the country, the office before your own financial
interests. Obviously that concept is foreign to Trump and the Trumpets.
> >>>>
> >>>> JUST because other people do something one way, it doesn't mean Trump
> >>>> has to do it their way, too. THAT's how liberals do things.
> >>
> >>
> >>> It's not a liberal versus conservative thing. JFK, Reagan, Bushs,
> >>> Clintons all put their investments into blind trusts. Stop spinning.
> >>
> >> So?? Trump doesn't have to jump off a bridge just because JFK, Reagan,
> >> the Bushes, and the Clinton's jumped off a bridge.
>
>
> > They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
> > interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
> > that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
> > over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>
> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
about anything, other than himself.
Are you the type who goes and stand in the
> long check out line at the grocery store JUST because you see everyone
> else doing it, too? I don't. I go looking for the self-check out lane
> that I can just walk up to with no waiting.
>
> IOW, Trump is under NO obligation to do anything just because someone
> else did it before him.
>
>
> --
> Maggie
no obligation not to start a nuclear war, just because previous
presidents avoided nuclear war. The failed logic of Trumpets is
amazing, but then that's how we wound up with this totally defective
nut case as president.
Muggles
Jan 14, 2017, 12:19:39 PM1/14/17
to
doesn't mean Trump has to be a follower, too!
> And again,
> that isn't the question you asked. You asked why should Trump put
> his assets in a blind trust. The reasons are to avoid conflicts
> of interest, to put the country, the office before your own financial
> interests. Obviously that concept is foreign to Trump and the Trumpets.
apply to the President or VP.
[...]
>>> They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
>>> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
>>> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
>>> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
> No shit Sherlock, but they did it because it was the right, moral,
> patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
> about anything, other than himself.
Why was it "right, moral, patriotic, or smart"?? JUST because a group of
>>> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
>>> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
>>> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
> No shit Sherlock, but they did it because it was the right, moral,
> patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
> about anything, other than himself.
people do something, it doesn't mean other people HAVE to do it, too,
and if they don't play follow the leader it doesn't make them "wrong,
immoral, unpatriotic, or stupid"!
You seem to believe if someone isn't a follower that automatically means
they're "wrong, immoral, unpatriotic, AND stupid".
>> Are you the type who goes and stand in the
>> long check out line at the grocery store JUST because you see everyone
>> else doing it, too? I don't. I go looking for the self-check out lane
>> that I can just walk up to with no waiting.
>>
>> IOW, Trump is under NO obligation to do anything just because someone
>> else did it before him.
> Sure, keep defending him. Next you'll be saying that Trump was under
> no obligation not to start a nuclear war, just because previous
> presidents avoided nuclear war. The failed logic of Trumpets is
> amazing, but then that's how we wound up with this totally defective
> nut case as president.
>
People said similar things about Reagan because they couldn't control
> no obligation not to start a nuclear war, just because previous
> presidents avoided nuclear war. The failed logic of Trumpets is
> amazing, but then that's how we wound up with this totally defective
> nut case as president.
>
him, either.
--
Maggie
trader_4
Jan 14, 2017, 12:45:45 PM1/14/17
to
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:19:39 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, I would, because I love the country and respect it, just like
> > JFK, Clinton, Reagan, Bushs. They all used blind trusts.
>
> Again ... SO??
So, if he wants to go through 4 years, hopefully less, of having all
>
>
> > Yes, I would, because I love the country and respect it, just like
> > JFK, Clinton, Reagan, Bushs. They all used blind trusts.
>
> Again ... SO??
kinds of conflicts of interest raised because of all your business
interests, if he wants to put his own interests above the country's
then he can legally do it and we'll have to see what the repercussions are.
Just because you're a follower instead of a leader it
> doesn't mean Trump has to be a follower, too!
>
a leader and he shows it every day. He behaves like a child. Just
today, on MLK weekend, he further divided the country, by attacking
Congressman John Lewis. Trump having narcissistic personality disorder,
can't let anything go.
>
> > And again,
> > that isn't the question you asked. You asked why should Trump put
> > his assets in a blind trust. The reasons are to avoid conflicts
> > of interest, to put the country, the office before your own financial
> > interests. Obviously that concept is foreign to Trump and the Trumpets.
>
> Your reasons are irrelevant because conflicts of interest don't legally
> apply to the President or VP.
>
not "Is it illegal?". Good grief, you Trumpets are dumb.
>
> [...]
> >>> They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
> >>> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
> >>> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
> >>> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>
> >> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
>
>
> > No shit Sherlock, but they did it because it was the right, moral,
> > patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
> > about anything, other than himself.
>
> Why was it "right, moral, patriotic, or smart"??
Here is a good example. Why is Trump going after Ford, Carrier,
GM, and not after himself? THAT is a good conflict of interest
right there. Why is he not bitching about his own deployment
of capital to create jobs in Scotland and Dubai? What give him
the moral right to rail against those other companies, threaten
them, while he does as he pleases, putting his money to work
overseas? Why is he threatening to hit other companies with
tariffs and not putting a tax on his deployment of capital
overseas? That's morality and conflict of interest for you!
JUST because a group of
> people do something, it doesn't mean other people HAVE to do it, too,
> and if they don't play follow the leader it doesn't make them "wrong,
> immoral, unpatriotic, or stupid"!
>
> You seem to believe if someone isn't a follower that automatically means
> they're "wrong, immoral, unpatriotic, AND stupid".
>
> >> Are you the type who goes and stand in the
> >> long check out line at the grocery store JUST because you see everyone
> >> else doing it, too? I don't. I go looking for the self-check out lane
> >> that I can just walk up to with no waiting.
> >>
> >> IOW, Trump is under NO obligation to do anything just because someone
> >> else did it before him.
>
> > Sure, keep defending him. Next you'll be saying that Trump was under
> > no obligation not to start a nuclear war, just because previous
> > presidents avoided nuclear war. The failed logic of Trumpets is
> > amazing, but then that's how we wound up with this totally defective
> > nut case as president.
> >
>
> People said similar things about Reagan because they couldn't control
> him, either.
>
> --
> Maggie
a conservative giant who accomplished great things. Trump is a
narcissitic pissant populist, who's only guiding principle is that
it's all about Trump. Oh, and Reagan put his assets into a blind
trust.
trader_4
Jan 14, 2017, 12:53:38 PM1/14/17
to
them in a blind trust, as did Reagan, Bushs, Clinton, etc. And
I'd say while the potential conflicts of interest exist for a Senator,
he's only one of 100 and the power, the range of decisions a Senator
has to make are minuscule compared to what a president has to do and
is involved in. And I'd expect that if there were a Senate vote that
involved something that was a conflict, they would recuse themselves
and not vote. If suddenly there is a military conflict or some country
is in financial peril and Trump has business interests there, there
is no provision for him to recuse himself. That's why it could be
messy, very messy.
Muggles
Jan 14, 2017, 12:58:42 PM1/14/17
to
On 1/14/2017 11:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:19:39 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I would, because I love the country and respect it, just like
>>> JFK, Clinton, Reagan, Bushs. They all used blind trusts.
>>
>> Again ... SO??
> So, if he wants to go through 4 years, hopefully less, of having all
> kinds of conflicts of interest raised because of all your business
> interests, if he wants to put his own interests above the country's
> then he can legally do it and we'll have to see what the repercussions are.
Why would he go through all kinds of conflicts of interest when the
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:19:39 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I would, because I love the country and respect it, just like
>>> JFK, Clinton, Reagan, Bushs. They all used blind trusts.
>>
>> Again ... SO??
> So, if he wants to go through 4 years, hopefully less, of having all
> kinds of conflicts of interest raised because of all your business
> interests, if he wants to put his own interests above the country's
> then he can legally do it and we'll have to see what the repercussions are.
President isn't subject to such conflict of interest laws??
>> Just because you're a follower instead of a leader it
>> doesn't mean Trump has to be a follower, too!
> Those other men were leaders.
> Trump has no idea what it takes to be
> a leader and he shows it every day.
takes to BE a leader.
> He behaves like a child.
> Just
> today, on MLK weekend, he further divided the country, by attacking
> Congressman John Lewis. Trump having narcissistic personality disorder,
> can't let anything go.
>>> And again,
>>> that isn't the question you asked. You asked why should Trump put
>>> his assets in a blind trust. The reasons are to avoid conflicts
>>> of interest, to put the country, the office before your own financial
>>> interests. Obviously that concept is foreign to Trump and the Trumpets.
>> Your reasons are irrelevant because conflicts of interest don't legally
>> apply to the President or VP.
> I never said they did. Again, you asked "Why should he...",
> not "Is it illegal?". Good grief, you Trumpets are dumb.
>> [...]
>>>>> They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
>>>>> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
>>>>> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
>>>>> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>>>> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
>>> No shit Sherlock, but they did it because it was the right, moral,
>>> patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
>>> about anything, other than himself.
>> Why was it "right, moral, patriotic, or smart"??
> Because it takes away the potential conflict of interest.
conflict of interest laws??
> Here is a good example. Why is Trump going after Ford, Carrier,
> GM, and not after himself?
"himself"??
> THAT is a good conflict of interest
> right there.
> Why is he not bitching about his own deployment
> of capital to create jobs in Scotland and Dubai?
> What give him
> the moral right to rail against those other companies, threaten
> them, while he does as he pleases, putting his money to work
> overseas?
his sons, now.
[...]
>> JUST because a group of
>> people do something, it doesn't mean other people HAVE to do it, too,
>> and if they don't play follow the leader it doesn't make them "wrong,
>> immoral, unpatriotic, or stupid"!
>>
>> You seem to believe if someone isn't a follower that automatically means
>> they're "wrong, immoral, unpatriotic, AND stupid".
> Village idiot rides again!
So, you can't see how your reasoning if flawed??
>> people do something, it doesn't mean other people HAVE to do it, too,
>> and if they don't play follow the leader it doesn't make them "wrong,
>> immoral, unpatriotic, or stupid"!
>>
>> You seem to believe if someone isn't a follower that automatically means
>> they're "wrong, immoral, unpatriotic, AND stupid".
> Village idiot rides again!
--
Maggie
trader_4
Jan 14, 2017, 1:19:49 PM1/14/17
to
people together, who can unite a nation and get things done. If you
want a narcissist nut with the temperament of a juvenile, who does
none of the above, then it doesn't matter. To get his new proposals
through the Senate, Trump needs at least 8 Democrats and that is
assuming all GOP vote yes, which seems doubtful. Do you think what
Trump just said about Lewis on MLK weekend helps get those Democrat
votes? This isn't Trump Company, it's the US govt.
>
> >>> And again,
> >>> that isn't the question you asked. You asked why should Trump put
> >>> his assets in a blind trust. The reasons are to avoid conflicts
> >>> of interest, to put the country, the office before your own financial
> >>> interests. Obviously that concept is foreign to Trump and the Trumpets.
>
>
> >> Your reasons are irrelevant because conflicts of interest don't legally
> >> apply to the President or VP.
>
>
> > I never said they did. Again, you asked "Why should he...",
> > not "Is it illegal?". Good grief, you Trumpets are dumb.
>
> Many people would understand my question. Evidently, you didn't.
>
doesn't understand what you wrote.
>
> >> [...]
> >>>>> They didn't jump off bridges, they just eliminated conflicts of
> >>>>> interest. And their conflicts were nothing like the huge conflicts
> >>>>> that Trump has. Did Clinton, Reagan have business interests all
> >>>>> over the world in countries the US govt has to deal with every day?
>
> >>>> THEY didn't HAVE to, either.
>
> >>> No shit Sherlock, but they did it because it was the right, moral,
> >>> patriotic and smart thing to do. Trump, he just doesn't give a shit
> >>> about anything, other than himself.
>
> >> Why was it "right, moral, patriotic, or smart"??
>
>
> > Because it takes away the potential conflict of interest.
>
> Why go to all the trouble when the president isn't subject to those
> conflict of interest laws??
>
explained to you. JFK put his assets into a blind trust.
Hence, when he had the Cuban Missile Crisis,
when he was making decisions that would wind up with US servicemen
dead, if he had previously had hotels in Cuba, he didn't want it
to appear that his decision was being made partly for his own
personal benefit.
>
> > Here is a good example. Why is Trump going after Ford, Carrier,
> > GM, and not after himself?
>
> uhm ... He's trying to keep jobs here in the US. Why would he go after
> "himself"??
>
>
> > THAT is a good conflict of interest
> > right there.
>
> In your mind, maybe.
>
>
> > Why is he not bitching about his own deployment
> > of capital to create jobs in Scotland and Dubai?
>
> Why should he??
>
protection under the law. But being a Trumpet, I don't expect
you understand it.
>
> > What give him
> > the moral right to rail against those other companies, threaten
> > them, while he does as he pleases, putting his money to work
> > overseas?
>
> He (his business) was ALREADY there?? He's turned the business over to
> his sons, now.
>
money, his businesses to create jobs overseas, that's OK.
But Ford, GM, Carrier doing it, well that's a different story.
Amazing the denial of you Trumpets. And Trump has not turned his
businesses over to his sons either. There is no change in ownership,
Trump still knows what he owns and where it is.
Muggles
Jan 14, 2017, 5:14:51 PM1/14/17
to
On 1/14/2017 12:19 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:58:42 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>> On 1/14/2017 11:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>
>>> Just
>>> today, on MLK weekend, he further divided the country, by attacking
>>> Congressman John Lewis. Trump having narcissistic personality disorder,
>>> can't let anything go.
>> I don't care. It appears the two men don't like each other. So what?
> It only matters if you want a president who's a leader, who can pull
> people together, who can unite a nation and get things done. If you
I don't care if those 2 men don't get along and don't like either other.
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:58:42 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
>> On 1/14/2017 11:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>
>>> Just
>>> today, on MLK weekend, he further divided the country, by attacking
>>> Congressman John Lewis. Trump having narcissistic personality disorder,
>>> can't let anything go.
>> I don't care. It appears the two men don't like each other. So what?
> It only matters if you want a president who's a leader, who can pull
> people together, who can unite a nation and get things done. If you
It has nothing to do with uniting a nation or getting things done.
>>> Because it takes away the potential conflict of interest.
>> Why go to all the trouble when the president isn't subject to those
>> conflict of interest laws??
> For the same reasons those other US presidents did. Already
> explained to you.
follow. Neither is Trump, and he's under no obligation to do anything
other people have done JUST because other people are "followers".
> JFK put his assets into a blind trust.
--
Maggie
gfre...@aol.com
Jan 14, 2017, 5:35:28 PM1/14/17
to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:53:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Again, that isn't the question you raised.
>>
>> Nobody asked the rest of the Kennedy family to divest themselves and
>> that seems to be where Trump is if he just turns the business over to
>> Ivanka. Teddy continued to benefit from the Kennedy family trust until
>> he died while still serving in the senate. It was far from "blind".
>
>Kennedy did not turn his investments over to his daughter,
The Kennedy money was spread all over the globe and it would boggle
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Again, that isn't the question you raised.
>>
>> Nobody asked the rest of the Kennedy family to divest themselves and
>> that seems to be where Trump is if he just turns the business over to
>> Ivanka. Teddy continued to benefit from the Kennedy family trust until
>> he died while still serving in the senate. It was far from "blind".
>
>Kennedy did not turn his investments over to his daughter,
the mind to think that the family had no idea where it was.
I agree Trump may be uniquely involved in businesses that are easy to
track, he plasters his name all over them but that does not mean other
people in government do not have potential conflicts. We only have to
look at the CGI and the dealings of SoS Clinton to see that.
0 new messages