US Presidential Candidates

Two things about Trump are definately true.

He has a massive ego and will go a long way to avoid taking hits to it.
He seems to firmly believe that his words and actions only have consequences for other people not him, so doesn't care.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

So I'd love to hear how the "drain the swamp" people interpret what is actually happening now.

Despite being warned multiple times that he is going to be in breach of the law if he continues holding ownership of his DC hotel... the lease on which forbids ANY elected official of the US government from benefiting from the property... Trump has made zero moves to address the problem and shows every sign of just ignoring it.


In the meantime, Gingrich is running around making arguments that Trump can simply have his people violate any conflict of interest protocols or laws that he likes and then use the power of the pardon.... and that's just fine. And making excuses for why he shouldn't have to divest his assets into a blind trust... and the excuse is... wait for it... He's Super Rich. So those standards shouldn't apply to him.


I can imagine the nation wide collective stroke the entire political right would have had if anyone had declared Obama, as president, has not only the authority to have his people disobey any law he likes but that that's just fine and dandy too. And that he/his family could and should run a vast personal business empire that exists for the purpose of his own personal enrichment WHILE serving as President of the United States without anyone worrying about conflict of interest. He isn't even sworn in yet and there are already reports surfacing his organization pressured the Kuwaitis into relocating a major event to a Trump property... and even if they HADN'T pressured them the Kuwaitis deciding to do it on their own to effectively bribe the incoming President (which he is *ridiculously* susceptible to when it has to do with stroking his ego AND making him money... his two favorite things) is a fucking serious issue.


So, how's that clean up of government corruption that was supposed to happen by electing one of the most blatantly corrupt individuals in the United States looking so far?

I am not sure that Trump's selling his private firm is necessary. Not arguing legalities here, just discussing some points of actual moral conflict.

Why should he sell his private company? Its not liquid and any potential buyer will know he MUST sell. They will demand a discount on his business if he is forced to sell. Requiring liquidation, then imposes a hardship for the President. It also destroys his ability to return to his company after he leaves office.

If he simply stops actively running his company and refrains from managing his company, he doesn't suffer the forced liquidation of his firm. I don't see it as immoral or even a conflict of interest if the company gains from Trump's increased reputation for having won the Presidency. If he fails miserably and his company craters, tough noogies. The idea is that he doesn't DO anything as President specifically to increase his company's worth.

From that perspective, I am not all too worried about his divesting, so long as he gives up active control of his company. Yes, I grant that this opens ways that Trump can act to specifically increase the worth of his company. I just don't believe that those gains will be meaningful when compared to the increased worth it will get from Trump's having won the Presidency and appearing to succeed as President.

Your country, your rules.
Just for general info though, he couldn't hold the equivalent position in Australia. One bankruptcy or one significant conflict of interest would bar him from public office, and he has several of both. We don't have the equivalent of a presidential pardon either.

PeterZ wrote:I am not sure that Trump's selling his private firm is necessary. Not arguing legalities here, just discussing some points of actual moral conflict.

Why should he sell his private company?

Because running a multinational corporation that exists to make you a personal profit and serving as the leader of the nation could be the example they use in the dictionary next to "conflict of interest".

FFS, Carter sold his freaking Peanut Farm to avoid any possibility of tarnishing any of his actions with any questions that he was taking them to somehow benefit his personal business rather than the American people. Trump has a multi national corporation that is in constant business negotiations with multiple foreign governments. I refuse to believe you could not see the problem here. You are one of the people who was up in arms over the mere suggestion that any foreign government or special interest may have given money to a NON PROFIT the Clinton's established while Clinton was Secretary of State as a means of maybe possibly buying access.

You cannot possible be here now saying you don't think it's necessarily a problem that multiple governments will be in business dealings with a corporations whose profits will end up in Trump's own pocket WHILE Trump is setting US foreign policy towards those nations..

This was you, in this very htread, talking to me:

"Yet, having large donations made to that foundation from foreign companies that have benefited from Secretary Clinton's decision sure as hell smells really bad. ignore it if you wish, feel free, since this isn't your country. I choose not to."


And to repeat, that is talking about donations To A Non Profit. The Clinton's make no money themselves from that and you still thought it was a serious issue. So explain how taking that same situation..... but changing it to "and also they make a personal profit from any money given to said organization so it's now a literal direct bribe" somehow seems to have made it a non issue in your eyes?????

Its not liquid and any potential buyer will know he MUST sell. They will demand a discount on his business if he is forced to sell. Requiring liquidation, then imposes a hardship for the President. It also destroys his ability to return to his company after he leaves office.

So to sum up... requiring any level of personal sacrifice of a President is now bad? If he didn't want his personal business activity cramped he should have stayed in the private sector. He ran for freaking President, it comes with responsibilities.

If he simply stops actively running his company and refrains from managing his company, he doesn't suffer the forced liquidation of his firm. I don't see it as immoral or even a conflict of interest if the company gains from Trump's increased reputation for having won the Presidency. If he fails miserably and his company craters, tough noogies. The idea is that he doesn't DO anything as President specifically to increase his company's worth.

You are describing a situation where it is completely impossible to prevent Trump from being able to base his decisions as President on the interests of his company. Whether he is personally running it or his kids are he will know damn well what it's up to. He *already* has them completely inappropriately sitting in on high level meetings with foreign heads of state.


This is setting the stage for the corruption of the office of the President on a scale unheard of, it makes anything the Clinton's were accused of when people were ranting about their foundation look like child's play, and suddenly it's hard to see what the big deal is????

He owns a company that owns and operates hotels.

If his increased reputation encourages more people to frequent his hotels and resorts, not a problem. If his kids take over the management of his hotels and they do not have confidential information unavailable to other participants in sector, no biggie. Could they gain an advantage because Daddy is President? Sure, and that is a problem. If THAT happens, pursue the case to the full extent of the law. The MSM will happily chase that story down.

The difference between this and Clinton, is that the Clinton foundation received donations from people who engaged with the Secretary of State. The Foundation paid for almost all of the Clinton's travel and other expenses including hefty salaries. The Clinton's net worth went from (in her own words) broke to more than a hundred million while Clinton was Secretary of State. The degree that their Foundation was able to pay the Clintons increased while she was Secretary of State.

This Non Profit generated large amounts of income to the Clintons BECAUSE of her government service. Trump's wealth was made before any government service and his business will continue to generate income after he leaves office. Any improved ability for his business to generate wealth that does not stem from decisions made as President isn't a conflict of interest.

Again, I grant that provisions need to be in place to monitor the decisions the business' managers make. I just don't see selling his business as the only way to protect against a conflict of interest.

PeterZ wrote:He owns a company that owns and operates hotels.

He has his fingers in a hell of a lot more pies than "owning and operating hotels".

If his increased reputation encourages more people to frequent his hotels and resorts, not a problem. If his kids take over the management of his hotels and they do not have confidential information unavailable to other participants in sector, no biggie.

So your views on the Clinton Foundation then are now that that was a COMPLETE non issue? Because it meets all your criteria and more. That was a rather amazingly fast turnaround in your opinion.

Could they gain an advantage because Daddy is President? Sure, and that is a problem. If THAT happens, pursue the case to the full extent of the law.

A prospect that will be damn near impossible to prove in a court of law. Just TRY to prove that Trump mentioned something to the kids at dinner one night that gave them an advantage without having recorders on him all the time bugging all his conversations. Or that some foreign power that gave the Trump corporation some fat juicy business opportunity did it to get in good with the president. Fat chance, whether it's true or not.

Which is why conflict of interest rules exist in the first place.

The difference between this and Clinton, is that the Clinton foundation received donations from people who engaged with the Secretary of State.

As opposed to business being given to a company OWNED BY the President.

In the first case the donations went to a non profit. Clinton herself does not profit from them. In the second that money has a direct line into the President's own bank account.


So yeah, there is a difference...

The Foundation paid for almost all of the Clinton's travel and other expenses including hefty salaries.

Which were in no way dependent on the amount of donations being drummed up, they were a flat rate. The. Donations. Did. Not. Profit. Clinton. That's how NON PROFITS work.

Again, I grant that provisions need to be in place to monitor the decisions the business' managers make. I just don't see selling his business as the only way to protect against a conflict of interest.

Then name another one. Because so far you haven't, vague "some kind of monitor" statements do not constitute such. How the hell is such a monitor supposed to work, 24 hour surveillance of the president's family including the president himself performed by some asset manager or something?

Clinton DID profit from her non-profit foundation. She took in a salary and could use foundation funds to pay for quite a few expenses. The foundation spends its funds paying the Clintons in various ways that are consistent with its bylaws. Foreigners used the foundation to donate funds to the Sec State's foundation. Foreigners gave money that the Sec State benefited from. It's illegal to do that directly, but not illegal to do so via a foundation with foreign subsidiaries.

Trump has a complex business, but it sells goods and services not influence. I don't believe he is legally obligated to sell the company. The firm does what it did before he was President; provide goods and services independent of his being President. The difference between this and Clinton is significant. His company can continue and grow more successful without selling influence.

That's my view in any case.

PeterZ wrote:Clinton DID profit from her non-profit foundation. She took in a salary

I said she didn't profit from the donations. The salary, to repeat, is a FLAT RATE. Not a commission percentage of how much money gets donated.

Same with expenses. This is standard non profit operating procedures we're talking about here.

So whether any foreign power was making donations or not, Clinton's personal net worth was not influenced by that.

As. Opposed. To. Money. Given. To. Trump's. Business.

Trump has a complex business,

All the easier to use for graft...

but it sells goods and services not influence.

Money. Is. Influence.Give Trump's business money and you have given Trump money. It's like streamlining bribery to allow him to keep his business under family control.

And you just keep making excuses.

I don't believe he is legally obligated to sell the company.The firm does what it did before he was President; provide goods and services independent of his being President.

Those last 5 words? That is **impossible**.

Every good and service they provide will now involve someone sending cash directly to the President of the United States fucking bank account. There is no "independent of" possible in that arrangement. It's pretty much **guaranteeing** rampant corruption.

The difference between this and Clinton is significant.

YES!!!! This is HORRIBLY TERRIBLY WORSE.

Another item we don't agree on. I believe Trump sells goods and services that does not require him to be President for those goods and services to be valuable. Clinton sells influence of someone connected to political power to foreigners through her foundation. Trump's business does not require his having political power to generate wealth. Clinton's foundation trades on political power as its primary attraction for donations.

Doubt we will ever agree on this.