10-4 yes
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
If it’s done at cost I have no issue with it, but do you really believe that is what will happen?
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
The G7 is not a cocktail party, its a serious meeting of negotiation. When someone is negotiating for your interests you want your negotiator to have every advantage. You want your negotiator to set the table to give him the advantage. You want him to be well rested, refreshed, comfortable, confident and in charge.
With the G7 at Doral, Trump is at home, sleeps in his own bed, everything he wants, from the food to the service to every other little detail is exactly how he wants it.
The people he is negotiating with are sleeping in his house, and everything they look at belongs to him.
That's a ginormous monster of a home field advantage.
How could any American be against that?
With the G7 at Doral, Trump is at home, sleeps in his own bed, everything he wants, from the food to the service to every other little detail is exactly how he wants it.
The people he is negotiating with are sleeping in his house, and everything they look at belongs to him.
That's a ginormous monster of a home field advantage.
How could any American be against that?
I don't think it would be too hard to keep tab on any profits from the summit. Some are saying because it's in June ( a slow month reportedly) that he will make more money. Just look at the average earnings for that particular week and ensure that any extra income generated is donated, or something like that. Quit making every action this President makes a court case or impeachable article. So petty...
It is very heartening to just learn now that you don't hate President Trump. From your previous posts dating back to 2016, I was of the mistaken belief that you harbored great hatred toward President Trump. Maybe hatred is too strong of word. How about a strong dislike? I would hope that you, like Nancy Pelosi, pray daily for President Trump. Maybe with your prayers and Nancy's, Trump's sad story will have a happy ending with him winning and completing a second term. Keep praying. God speed!
I did a quick search on E.O. for the word "narcissist" using your screen name. The search showed 26 posts. When it comes to narcissism, to me, you seem to be the expert on the subject here on E.O. I don't know if your knowledge of narcissism is from psychology courses, life experience or both. You are our resident expert. I thought this from the first week I became an E.O. member. So you being a narcissistic expert, do you believe that Donald Trump is more or less of a narcissist than Hillary Clinton?
Even if he didn't charge a thing, at the cost for the entire event, they'd say he was getting seventeen gazillion dollars in free advertising, give or take a mil.
Even if he charged full rate, it's still not illegal.
It cracks me up when people say, "He's violating the Emoluments Clause!" Because, you know, they are experts because there's this vast and rich history of Emoluments Clause cases and rulings to point to as precedent.
Oh, wait.
Trump doesn't need free advertising. His brand is well known and thanks to the MSM everyone in the world with a television or internet connection is familiar with it. The MSM probably is partially responsible for getting Trump elected. Although that wasn't their intention.
Yes, Moot, speaking as a layperson and claiming no expertise on this topic, I believe Trump is more narcissistic than Hillary Clinton. Further, I'll reiterate my belief previously stated that Trump's narcissism will be his undoing.
I base my belief on what certain experts say on the topic. While I have also read and weighed the opinions of mental health experts who say Trump cannot be or ought not be diagnosed as having narcissistic personality disorder or a more severe condition, I find the former to be more persuasive.
Last edited:
Trump was shocked when he won. Hillary was shocked and utterly devastated when she lost. She was so devastated that on election night she couldn't even face the crying throngs of supporters and FBI agents at The Javits Center. Trump was gracious in victory, whereas Hillary was a snarling, bitter old woman. You might want to rethink those beliefs. Check with a few experts on it.
If Trump was even remotely as narcissistic as you claim, that would have happened 3 months in, 6 tops.
That's kinda the question of the day, is it not? Is it legal or illegal, or is it constitutional or unconstitutional for Trump to receive money from foreign entities while he holds the office of President of the United States?
I believe it is illegal and unconstitutional, but that is the belief of a mere layperson. With three emoluments court cases now active, and with (presumably) some of the best legal minds in the country arguing their points before the courts, it seems wise to wait and see what the final rulings turn out to be. Then we'll all have our answer. In the meantime, I'm happy to maintain my belief and later acknowledge it as incorrect if that becomes the case.
A Friday report suggests the emoluments question may rise in a fourth arena. It may become an article of impeachment to be tried by the U.S. Senate.
"The House of Representatives is teeing up a formal condemnation of President Donald Trump's choice to select his own Florida golf resort—Trump National Doral Miami—as the site for next year's G7 Summit.
The Rules Committee said Friday it will debate and amend a resolution on Tuesday that will oppose the decision and reject "his practice of accepting foreign government Emoluments without obtaining Congress' affirmative consent." (Source)
This resolution is likely to be approved in the U.S. House. That puts the House on record, specifically opposing Trump's Doral/G-7 deal. That's significant because if Trump proceeds to host the G-7 Summit at his resort, it will be clear he is doing so without the consent of Congress.
Apparently, the time line is longer. Also, exactly how narcissistic am I claiming Trump to be? Are you keeping score? If so, what is the criteria?
Like I said a really long time ago in this thread, emoluments have never been adjudicated, so we won't know fire sure until SCOTUS rules on it. But I do know, as has been previously discussed in this very thread, that the president and vice-president are explicitly exempt, by statute, from the conflict of interest laws.
Of course it will. The Dems are throwing all of the spaghetti at the wall to see what might stick.
Exactly more than Hillary.
I am not. I'd rather not accept hopes and wishes as being anything other than hopes and wishes. I get enough of 'opinions stated as fsct' from the MSN that I tend to tune it out here.
All politicians are narcissistic. So are most CEOs of large companies. And the higher up the political ladder you go the more narcissistic you are likely to be. This isn't a new thing. It's been going on since G. Washington. You refer to Trump as of he's an outlier, unusual, or perhaps more narcissistic than Hillary or Obama or anyone else.
He a businessman running things like a businessman. It's why things are getting done.
But despite all the massive runaway self-dealing and self-enriching and emoluments-taking that's going on, he doesn't take a salary, Ivanka doesn't take a salary, Jared doesn't take a salary. The Trump Organization stopped doing any and all new international business before Trump's inauguration. And Trump has taken action with Turkey that goes directly against his self-interest, and in fact harmed his interests, regarding his hotel property in Istanbul. These are not the actions of a particularly narcissistic narcissist.
You can believe what you like. It's a free country (unless any of the current Democrat candidates win the presidency). But impeachment and removal from office isn't reality. The Democrats have been trying to dig up something to impeach Trump with since he was elected including fabricating stuff, but it always falls apart, just like the whistleblower thing is falling apart right before their eyes. Schiff was flabbergasted when Trump released the phone call transcript. Now Schiff won't even call the whistleblower as a witness. They are so desperate at this point that they're doing depositions and testimony in secret, and then selectively leaking only that which they think will damage Trump with the public.
But if they do officially official move forward with impeachment, they can't keep things secret. It'll all come out and be examined and cross-examined. And it'll fall apart just like the Mueller Report and everything else.
Which statute?
Correct
Also correct. Trump's problem is not that he is not getting things done. It's that what he's getting done is going to get him impeached and convicted. True, he is a businessman but the U.S. presidency is not a business. It's government. Trump lacks the political insights and skills to successfully serve the people such that they will not come to favor his removal from office. A different businessman could well succeed as president, and Trump could too if he was not fatally narcissistic and did not lack the requisite insights and skills.
Yes, your honor, I robbed the bank but I also donated money to the church.
As can everyone who participates in this forum (thanks to fair and competent moderating)
Time will tell. People who said earlier that impeachment wasn't reality now see the impeachment process moving through the House and articles of impeachment fully expected to reach the Senate. Just as that landscape changed, I expect the removal landscape to also change.
The Democrats have offered a plausible explanation for the closed-door hearings (a grand jury that would normally investigate such matters and operate in secret does not exist because a politically motivated Justice Department refuses to press the case). Sadly, they completely undermine that explanation with their immediate and selective leaks. They would do better to continue their closed-door hearings while keeping their mouths shut.
Your are correct. It will indeed all come out and be examined and cross-examined. However, I believe enough of it will hold together, and public sentiment will shift enought to secure a conviction in the Senate.
The Mueller Report remains very much intact. Regarding "collusion," the Mueller Report "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities." I have not heard a single Trump supporter say that finding should be rejected because the Mueller Report fell apart.
Regarding obstruction of justice, "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the report says. The evidence "about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," Mueller adds. Furthermore, Mueller makes it clear his investigators would have said there was no obstruction if they could demonstrate it: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." (Quote Source).
The Muller Report compiled and presented a substantial amount of evidence that Trump obstructed justice. I do not know if it will happen but I would not be surprised to see the obstruction of justice and the Muller Report evidence included in the articles of impeachment. Just because the House has not yet acted on the Mueller Report, it does not follow that it cannot or will not later do so.
Last edited:
Turtle's comment about Trump being a business man who gets things done prompted me to wonder about the business experience of other presidents. While it does not directly pertain to the current impeachment discussion, I found this piece about businessman presidents interesting to read. Excerpt:
Surprisingly, four presidents who had successful business careers — Hoover, both Bushes and Carter — “had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance,” ... “The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business: Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.”
This piece reports the same. Excerpt:
"History suggests that there is no link between success in the business world and success in the White House. In fact—and surprisingly—the opposite appears to be true. Presidents with business backgrounds rank poorly among historians and voters, who have turned several of them out of office for poor performance. In fact, since 1900, the only president who is today considered great—Harry Truman—was a failed businessman."
"This doesn’t necessarily mean that a President Trump would fare as these men did. But it does suggest that business success is not enough."
Good business skills are a good asset if you lead a for-profit business. Government is different. In government, power is divided among three branches, each having say over the other. It is a mistake to say any president's business skills are important without at the same time recognizing the checks and balances system in which a president serves.
At the local level, I've heard business people say our church would be better if it was run like a business, and our schools would be better if they were run like a business. While it is true that churches and schools could likely be improved if they became more businesslike in some respects (accounting, marketing, etc.), it is not the case that a church is a business or a school is a business. A church is a church with a church's reason for being. A school is a school with a school's reason for being.
A president would be unwise to run the federal government like a business when the government is in fact an entity that is of the people, by the people for the people; and one in which the president is required to operate within the law and is subject to the checks and balances provided by the constitution.
Surprisingly, four presidents who had successful business careers — Hoover, both Bushes and Carter — “had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance,” ... “The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business: Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.”
This piece reports the same. Excerpt:
"History suggests that there is no link between success in the business world and success in the White House. In fact—and surprisingly—the opposite appears to be true. Presidents with business backgrounds rank poorly among historians and voters, who have turned several of them out of office for poor performance. In fact, since 1900, the only president who is today considered great—Harry Truman—was a failed businessman."
"This doesn’t necessarily mean that a President Trump would fare as these men did. But it does suggest that business success is not enough."
Good business skills are a good asset if you lead a for-profit business. Government is different. In government, power is divided among three branches, each having say over the other. It is a mistake to say any president's business skills are important without at the same time recognizing the checks and balances system in which a president serves.
At the local level, I've heard business people say our church would be better if it was run like a business, and our schools would be better if they were run like a business. While it is true that churches and schools could likely be improved if they became more businesslike in some respects (accounting, marketing, etc.), it is not the case that a church is a business or a school is a business. A church is a church with a church's reason for being. A school is a school with a school's reason for being.
A president would be unwise to run the federal government like a business when the government is in fact an entity that is of the people, by the people for the people; and one in which the president is required to operate within the law and is subject to the checks and balances provided by the constitution.
Last edited:
The Dems have been talking impeachment even before Trump was elected. There is no bold prediction with that. The issue is IF the Dems in the House decide to EVER vote on it, and get a majority, will the Senate convict? That scenario of conviction is highly unlikely.
Title 18, 208
Here's a Johnny-On-The-Spot article from the Failing New York Times that addresses exactly this issue.
Trump’s Choice to Bring G7 to His Own Resort Would Violate Conflict-of-Interest Law, if He Weren’t President (Published 2019)
The president is exempt from federal conflict-of-interest laws. But his decision to bring world leaders to his Doral resort in Florida could raise a constitutional issue.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how much the Truman administration's policies had on the post war economic surge. Even Jimmy Carter could have steered the post war economic engine without derailing it.
When Trump was running for president his four Chapter 11 filings made him unfit to run the country.
Examining Donald Trump’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcies
Donald Trump, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from both the media and the other candidates for his business record. Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, he has reportedly filed for business bankruptcy at least four times.
Kasich. That name looked familiar but I couldn't place it so I googled it. Came up with John Kasich. Aw, that Kasich! Former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Former Governor of Ohio. Former 2016 Presidential Candidate. Is he bitter because he lost the nomination to Trump? Possibly, but getting his name back in the media should help sales of his new book. Go Johnny go!