Trump Says Any Conflicts Of Interest Were Priced Into Your Vote

The minority party of Democrats want to punish Donald Trump for being successful. Typical.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Indigo5

Like I said before....at this point there is no conflict. He is not POTUS.

Do you not think a President Elect in the midst of assembling a cabinet and policy direction is not subject to any ethical standards or vulnerable to corruption? I don't understand your premise.

Again...please let me know when Congress passes the bill on this issue you seem to have with the legality or ethics of what is or isn't happening.

I thought your argument was that he is not yet in office? Now you seem to be changing seats to rest on "well...it is not illegal"

At this point there is apparently nothing illegal and ethics is a matter of opinion apparently only held for the opposing view when the rules don't work in their favor any more.

So corruption is acceptable depending on political allegiance? Not that I disagree...after all we spent years investigating the location of Hillary Clinton's email server whilst the incoming President just settled a massive RICO lawsuit alleging he ran a fraud university bilking thousands of people out of Millions of dollars.

What are the chances that Trump's activities while in office will be investigated with the same vigor that HRC's IT practices were?

Of course I am kidding...Of course the GOP will embrace a corrupt administration in trade for unilateral power.

I just can't quite stomach the BS about "drain the swamp"...the precise opposite has already began to happen, from his appointments of people previously run out of DC for questionable ethics to his businesses running full throttle to exploit his status as President. He is not assembling a Cabinet, he is assembling a team of like-minded underlings.

Of course I want to be wrong, but he has been consistent in his ethical choices thus far...He comes first, national interests second.

a reply to: jimmyx

No, I think you do not know what you are talking about and would like to hear your reason why?

He has over 500 companies that are 'run' with his children. He does not have to give them anything as they are part owners. It is also a private and not a public company. Last, he is exempt according to the US government.

18 U.S.C. § 202(c), “the disqualification requirements of federal law do not apply to… Members of Congress, the President and the Vice President.” For these legally-exempted officials, a simple financial disclosure form is deemed sufficient.

This is as bad as wanting his tax returns. There is no law that they have to do it.

originally posted by: carewemust
The minority party of Democrats want to punish Donald Trump for being successful. Typical.

I see you posted words...but your post is meaningless BS...unless you would like to explain yourself?

Was not Donald Trump the one that said "of course" he would place his businesses in a "blind trust"?

Like Presidents before him have done?

Isn't he the one that has bemoaned conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington?

How is it that you see his complaints and promises a "Democrat" thing?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

Please tell us why then?

the fact that you ask this question, means, (1) that you do not understand the concept...and/or...(2) you have no desire, nor the curiosity to educate yourself on that concept.....thus, my explanation would be meaningless to you, as well as a waste of time for me.

Maybe Trump is just going to keep on winning in everything he does. Has there ever been a bigger winner?
I am sure his business success is going to get even greater during his Presidency.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not trying to detract from your OP but I fully agree as per my thread about same...

So do many others.

It *is* a big deal Mr. President Elect

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

...

$20,000-a-night, 6,300-square-foot “town house” suite

...

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.

www.washingtonpost.com...

That doesn't sound like funnel for influence buying or anything.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

No, I think you do not know what you are talking about and would like to hear your reason why?

He has over 500 companies that are 'run' with his children. He does not have to give them anything as they are part owners. It is also a private and not a public company. Last, he is exempt according to the US government.

18 U.S.C. § 202(c), “the disqualification requirements of federal law do not apply to… Members of Congress, the President and the Vice President.” For these legally-exempted officials, a simple financial disclosure form is deemed sufficient.

This is as bad as wanting his tax returns. There is no law that they have to do it.

and there isn't a law against calling every black person you see or meet a n****r, but it's obvious why you don't

a reply to: jimmyx

What does your answer even mean except it looks like you do not have an answer.

a reply to: Indigo5

and your point is?


They are staying at a nice hotel. So what?

a reply to: jimmyx

and there isn't a law against calling every black person you see or meet a n****r,

well depending on how you say it there is. it could fall under hate speech.

originally posted by: Indigo5

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.

...

$20,000-a-night, 6,300-square-foot “town house” suite

...

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.

www.washingtonpost.com...

That doesn't sound like funnel for influence buying or anything.

So, someone stays at one of his hotels because they think it will curry favour, and that is an example of corruption? Good lord.
So many desperate and quite ridiculous attacks against a man not even President yet.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

What does your answer even mean except it looks like you do not have an answer.

well then, in your mind....trump and his family should try and make as much money as possible being president, without any oversite or intervention from anyone......you seem to understand that concept quite well.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Indigo5

Like I said before....at this point there is no conflict. He is not POTUS.

Do you not think a President Elect in the midst of assembling a cabinet and policy direction is not subject to any ethical standards or vulnerable to corruption? I don't understand your premise.

Again...please let me know when Congress passes the bill on this issue you seem to have with the legality or ethics of what is or isn't happening.

I thought your argument was that he is not yet in office? Now you seem to be changing seats to rest on "well...it is not illegal"

At this point there is apparently nothing illegal and ethics is a matter of opinion apparently only held for the opposing view when the rules don't work in their favor any more.

So corruption is acceptable depending on political allegiance? Not that I disagree...after all we spent years investigating the location of Hillary Clinton's email server whilst the incoming President just settled a massive RICO lawsuit alleging he ran a fraud university bilking thousands of people out of Millions of dollars.

What are the chances that Trump's activities while in office will be investigated with the same vigor that HRC's IT practices were?

Of course I am kidding...Of course the GOP will embrace a corrupt administration in trade for unilateral power.

I just can't quite stomach the BS about "drain the swamp"...the precise opposite has already began to happen, from his appointments of people previously run out of DC for questionable ethics to his businesses running full throttle to exploit his status as President. He is not assembling a Cabinet, he is assembling a team of like-minded underlings.

Of course I want to be wrong, but he has been consistent in his ethical choices thus far...He comes first, national interests second.

I haven't changed anything at all. He isn't in office yet and apparently you can't understand that there is nothing currently illegal that he is doing because of that "small" detail.

As far as his current cases and settlements or not...again...this is OUR court systems and rules put in place by CURRENT AND PAST politicians...neither of which the POTUS ELECT ever was.

The only people you can actually blame for anything that does or doesn't happen are those that allowed it to happen by making the rules at the time to favor exactly this type of behavior but want to complain when it isn't working in their favor.

It's a silly infinite circle.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

Please tell us why then?

the fact that you ask this question, means, (1) that you do not understand the concept...and/or...(2) you have no desire, nor the curiosity to educate yourself on that concept.....thus, my explanation would be meaningless to you, as well as a waste of time for me.

Maybe Trump is just going to keep on winning in everything he does. Has there ever been a bigger winner?

Actually yes. Out of the last 44 Presidents, 42 of them were elected by a greater margin of the popular vote.
He ranks 43 out 45 (including himself) for the popular vote margin coming into office.
Rutherford Hayes (one of only two in history) 1876 was the last President to lose the popular vote by a larger margin than Trump and still win the electoral college.
And just last week he ceded a RICO lawsuit and agreed to pay 25 Million plus dollars to American Citizens he defrauded.
On top of multiple bankruptcies.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

What does your answer even mean except it looks like you do not have an answer.

well then, in your mind....trump and his family should try and make as much money as possible being president, without any oversite or intervention from anyone......you seem to understand that concept quite well.

As did the last administration. One wonders how so many in Govt have become so rich. Obama is splashing out millions on 3 homes. Where did he get the money for that?
At least Trump does not need any more money. You've finally got a chance that a President wont be just in it for themselves.

a reply to: jimmyx

You don't know what I am thinking but you cannot seem to craft a response still.

He and his family made billions before he was in office, will make billions while in office and will make billions when out of office. They have over 500 private companies they run. It has nothing to do with the POTUS position.

If he was a struggling governor who made lots of connections in office and then made millions after he was in office I could see some conflict of interest. Oh wait, that is Bill Clinton I am describing. What he did was make a name so he could sell a name.

Trump is a brand. If people want to go to his hotels because he is president where is the conflict? If they want to say I played at a golf course owned by the president where is the conflict of interest? How can his companies go further in the world with him as president? He is already everywhere....

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

Please tell us why then?

the fact that you ask this question, means, (1) that you do not understand the concept...and/or...(2) you have no desire, nor the curiosity to educate yourself on that concept.....thus, my explanation would be meaningless to you, as well as a waste of time for me.

Maybe Trump is just going to keep on winning in everything he does. Has there ever been a bigger winner?

Actually yes. Out of the last 44 Presidents, 42 of them were elected by a greater margin of the popular vote.
He ranks 43 out 45 (including himself) for the popular vote margin coming into office.
Rutherford Hayes (one of only two in history) 1876 was the last President to lose the popular vote by a larger margin than Trump and still win the electoral college.
And just last week he ceded a RICO lawsuit and agreed to pay 25 Million plus dollars to American Citizens he defrauded.
On top of multiple bankruptcies.

No one cares about the popular vote. It's irrelevant. Having said that, Trump won the popular vote in 30 states.
Bottom line, did Trump win the election against all the odds? Yes he did. He won.
Without doubt the greatest political win in history.

He's also a billionaire, has a decent family and great wife. He won the game of life. Big league

He's quite simply a winner and I'd add that the common characteristic of a loser is the emotional need to try and belittle winners.

a reply to: Indigo5

He won. He paid some losers who were upset they did not become business moguls. That would be like suing a company whose book you purchased to learn karate and you got your ass kicked. No one was forced to attend Trump U.

Multiple bankruptcies. 3 for the same business to keep it afloat. 1 other one. Still owns 500 companies. Enough said....

a reply to: matafuchs

The purpose of a Blind Trust is to prevent conflict of interest. Not to 'officially' register as one.

For example, Trump could 'fix' the real-estate market for 'us' and make a good penny for himself with all this property he owns.

On a lighter note, owning all those companies must be distracting.


The reason his kids running the Company isn't good is because they would have the top Washington insider. Infact, his kids not running it follows the same course of reasoning of him not being allowed to run it as President.

If it's "okay" for his kids to own it, there is no point in having a blind trust anyway, and he should just run it, he surely does better than his kids.