noblehunter wrote:Unfortunately, he is uniquely qualified to be President at this time. He's the only one that meets the requirement of being selected by the Electoral College.
To be clearer - there are cases where you have a candidate for a given job who is uniquely qualified in the sense that he brings some ability to the table that no-one else can. A exceptionally talented musician, or other artist, for example, a master programmer, etc. In such cases, you could
arguably maintain that he brings such a benefit that you
might consider bending a few rules for his admission.
I don't see Trump as meeting that bar. There are plenty of individuals whoe are at least as capable. In this specific election cycle he's unique in that he managed to get enough people in the right places to vote for him over all the other candidates, but that doesn't mean he's uniquely qualified to
do the job of President (while I don't expect an officeholder to do great things in his first month of office, Trump's conduct is franly inept).
I have an issue with saying the President must do something that is not codified by law. While there might be grounds under the Emoluments clause to require Trump to dissolve his foreign business ties, there doesn't seem to be anything covering his domestic business.
If these entanglements were sufficient cause to deny him the Presidency, he wouldn't have been elected. As such, I think some restraint is warranted on the subject. None of this was kept secret or hidden from voters. They knew who and what they were voting for (poor souls).
The law specifies the minimum requirements for someone to hold office. That does not mean that these are the only consideration. Yes, in Trump's case, a sufficient amount of voters decided that his fincancial issues were tolerable. That does not mean his conduct is in fact ethical, just that enogh people either don't believe or don't care.
From what I cn find, HRC made most of that money from speaking fees* and writing books, largely (or wholly, as far as active acts are involved, at least as far as I can tell) before she was SoS. It's a lot harder to parley an executive position to advance those interests, unless you want to accuse her of compromising American interests to advance book sales.
*And the fees she got for speaking were apparently not that exorbitant by the standards of celebrity speakers (don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is stupid, but still)
We also have Alcee Hastings with a net worth of negative $4.7 million. He is either hiding assets or getting serious loans he doesn't have the assets to repay. That sounds like a man ripe for being influenced or is already being influenced with money.
I agree that seems to be a problem (can't say more because I have no idea who HAstings is beyond what the article says).
There are 237 millionaires in congress in 2009. That number grows to 268 by 2012.
That's the sort of opportunity to amass wealth while in public service that troubles me. It is easy to bribe public servants now. Making it more difficult to become a public servant if wealthy doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
My preference is that public servants cannot grow wealthy while a public servant. That smacks too much like third world kleptocracies. Lived and worked in Indonesia and I don't want to import any of their bad habits here.
Well, I agree, but the way to solve that is to make it more difficult for public servants to amass wealth (although how you do it legally is puzzling) rather than to choose someone who sees his (or
hers) position as a money making opportunity...
biochem wrote:(Trump's reason during the campaign was that he was being audited [normal for someone in Trump's position so an audited in and of itself isn't a red flag] and that his lawyers recommended against the release until the audit was resolved. That was probably true, it sounds like something lawyers would say. [yes I know the IRS said it wasn't against their regulations but that's just a distraction, he wasn't arguing IRS regulations he was arguing legal advice]. Anyway the maximum that the IRS audits is 6 years so his lawyers would have no excuses to recommend that 7 year old returns not be released).
I'm sure he'd find something. Remember, he used to be
in favor of releasing tax returns before he ran. Then, in January 16, he said he'd realease his returns soon. He kept promising to release them, then said he couldn't do so because of an audit (which we don't actually now is actually taking place, mind, since he didn't release any proof and the IRS doesn't comment on these matters).
Last September, he promised to release them once the audit was complete. And then after winning he said he wouldn't release them.
smr wrote:Would you release your tax returns for people who want to use the tax returns to try to impeach him or cause harm to his business's. Just because he is the opposition and you hate him, please try to at least be fair and objective. If not, just go fishing and enjoy life for a couple of weeks. The hatred in your heart is not healthy, the hatred is only going to get a person sick!
Because that's been the custom for 40 years and every other major Presidential candidate has done so? Trump is failing to meet the standard that
Nixon did!
Look at TheE, he thinks that should be able to hold the sins of the father against the daughter. She did not run for office but it's ok to punish her company because she supports her father. Wow, what an idiot! Is it any wonder that he can not write a book that people would enjoy. Newsflash! Write a book that both sides can enjoy...don't limit your readership! Learn to see the other side's point of view...you don't have to agree with their pov but understand it.
In general, I agree, politicans' children should be off limits. It was despicable when Chelsea Clinton was attacked during the Clinton PResidency (seriously, publicly calling a teenaged girl the "White House dog"?), it was wrong in regard to the Bush daughters (although I didn't really here much about them, possibly because it was mostly limited to gossip rags rather than international news) and likewise to the Obama daughters (although again, I don't remember anything like what happened with Clinton, most of the obnoxious attacks seem directed at Michelle Obama). Ivanka Trump, however, is deeply involved in Trump's campaign and his Presidency, which makes her a rather more legitimate target (especially since the attacks being talked about are consumers boycotting her products rather than making personal attacks on her).
