I'm unsure of how to quantify how narcissistic you claim Trump to be. You have referred to him several times in this thread as; extreme narcissist, super-narcissist and full-blown narcissist.
Is it important to you to be scored?
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Not at all, at least not in this regard. I asked Turtle the score question only because he seemed to have some sort of standard in mind. That question has since been answered. You are correct in what you say above. I have indeed categorized Trump's narcissism in those ways and continue to believe those categorizations to be accurate. As you suggested, I am not an expert on this topic. Neither are you. You are no more qualified to say Trump is not a full-blown narcissist than I am to say it.I'm unsure of how to quantify how narcissistic you claim Trump to be. You have referred to him several times in this thread as; extreme narcissist, super-narcissist and full-blown narcissist.
Is it important to you to be scored?
Laypeople do not need to be experts to form and debate opinions.
Thank you, Turtle. I will read it. On another item, why do you refer to the paper as the "Failing New York Times?" I know Trump has been saying this for years but the paper remains in business. When you look at its number of subscribers, stock price and profits, it does not seem to be failing at all.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.www.nytimes.com
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.
You raise a valid point. I believe it is also a valid point that this and other Trump transactions are unconstitutional; specifically, they violate the emoluments clause. As I mentioned above, there are three legal and one political arena where this question is being debated. We'll have our answer as these cases proceed to their conclusions. It seems likely that the question will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
I see a paragraph near the end of the article says, "Democrats in Congress who filed one of these cases will now revise the lawsuit to include the plan by Mr. Trump to have the Group of 7 meeting at the Doral." That's good. It puts the Doral question squarely before the court (no new lawsuit needed) where it can be argued by experts on both sides and a court can rule.
Last edited:
I suppose. And yet as unwise as it may be, we're wasting less money on useless and corrupt aid packages, personal income for the lower and middle classes is up substantially to record levels over the last 3 years, costly and inefficient regulations have been eliminated, unemployment is at record low levels, trade imbalances are becoming less and less of an issue, we're energy independent, the military has the proper resources to preform well, border security policies at the southern border area already producing a cost savings, and government revenue is up.
Comparing past business-oriented presidential performance was certainly a valid and worthwhile exercise before the 2016 election, doing so at this point and trying to draw any conclusions is meaningless, because the only conclusion that can be drawn is that such concerns were unwarranted.
Turtle can answer this if he wants. But I'll chime in here. The NYTimes is failing at journalism.
Humor. Because that's what Trump calls them. I think it's funny.
Camp David is certainly better for a G7 metting than the Moonshine Ballroom at the Marriott Hotel in Pigeon Forge, TN, but it's got nowhere near the home field advantage of a place like Doral.
People who are against it either... A) haven't the first clue about how to do successful negotiations, B) are so partisan that they'd rather see Trump fail than see America succeed, or C) are just butt-stoopid in general. I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that a disturbing number of people are all three.
People who are against it either... A) haven't the first clue about how to do successful negotiations, B) are so partisan that they'd rather see Trump fail than see America succeed, or C) are just butt-stoopid in general. I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that a disturbing number of people are all three.
In the news this morning, Trump reversed himself and said Doral will not host the G-7 Summit. That removes the specific Doral question from the larger emoluments question but the emoluments question remains. As I said above, that question will likely be decided by the Supreme Court as the three active cases work their way up to that level.
There is a fourth possibility. People are against the Doral site because hosting the G-7 Summit at Doral, a resort owned by the president, presents an appearance of impropriety, a conflict of interest, a violation of law (not following the mandated bidding process), and/or a violation of the emoluments clause. Now that Trump has reversed himself on G-7/Doral, these questions will never be tested in court, but this fourth reason some people opposed Doral remains.
It's not because they haven't a clue about how to do successful negotiations. Numerous Doral opponents can be found who have successfully negotiated everything from their employment contract to union contracts to international agreements.
It's not because they are so partisan that they'd rather see Trump fail than see America succeed. A number of prominent Republicans came out against Doral.
And it's not because they are just "butt-stoopid" in general. You citing this reason surprises and disappoints me, Turtle. The intellectual level of your comments and the respect you show to people of opposing views are usually higher than that.
Last edited:
I stand by my 3 categories. Your fourth possibility fits into one of more of those three categories. Those who think Doral presents an appearance of impropriety, a conflict of interest, a violation of law, or emoluments issues, think so because they are convinced Trump is self-dealing and enriching himself by selecting Doral, despite the event producing no profit. It's a context some people can't allow themselves to step back from and view things objectively.
Those who understand negotiating and have successfully negotiated things, and who are nevertheless against Doral, fall into the category of people who are more interested in Trump failing than they are in the US succeeding.
The Republicans who came out against Doral did not do so because they are partisan, but because they fall into one of the other categories.
As for the Butt-Stoopid category, it surprises me that you are surprised, considering the Capitol in general, and the Capitol Building in particular, is just chock full of butt-stoopid people.
For example, we have one member of the House of Representatives who introduced Articles of Impeachment, three times, on the grounds that Trump is a racist and therefore should be removed from office. We have another member of the same body, with a degree in Economics, by the way, who thinks the reason that unemployment is so low is because people have more than one job. The same person just the other day said the current field of Democrat candidates is the strongest field of presidential candidates in the history of our nation.
We have a sitting Senator who is campaigning for the Democrat presidential nomination who is campaigning on taking away the current president's freedom of speech. There's a House member from your state who thinks it should be a felony to insult an elected official on social media. We have two other prominent Senators campaigning that to add the 18% of the population without health insurance to the health insurance rolls that it will take tens of trillions of dollars to do it, several times the entire government revenue, in fact, instead of the tens of millions of would actually cost.
We have an alarming number of people, including the Speaker of the House, who think the president is engaging in a cover-up of the contents of a phone conversation by releasing the transcript of the phone conversation.
We have a Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who thinks due process is overrated and archaic. We have a Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who thinks holding hearings in secret is being transparent.
I'm just scratching the surface here. I can go on, virtually ad nauseum, if you like.
Those who understand negotiating and have successfully negotiated things, and who are nevertheless against Doral, fall into the category of people who are more interested in Trump failing than they are in the US succeeding.
The Republicans who came out against Doral did not do so because they are partisan, but because they fall into one of the other categories.
As for the Butt-Stoopid category, it surprises me that you are surprised, considering the Capitol in general, and the Capitol Building in particular, is just chock full of butt-stoopid people.
For example, we have one member of the House of Representatives who introduced Articles of Impeachment, three times, on the grounds that Trump is a racist and therefore should be removed from office. We have another member of the same body, with a degree in Economics, by the way, who thinks the reason that unemployment is so low is because people have more than one job. The same person just the other day said the current field of Democrat candidates is the strongest field of presidential candidates in the history of our nation.
We have a sitting Senator who is campaigning for the Democrat presidential nomination who is campaigning on taking away the current president's freedom of speech. There's a House member from your state who thinks it should be a felony to insult an elected official on social media. We have two other prominent Senators campaigning that to add the 18% of the population without health insurance to the health insurance rolls that it will take tens of trillions of dollars to do it, several times the entire government revenue, in fact, instead of the tens of millions of would actually cost.
We have an alarming number of people, including the Speaker of the House, who think the president is engaging in a cover-up of the contents of a phone conversation by releasing the transcript of the phone conversation.
We have a Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who thinks due process is overrated and archaic. We have a Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who thinks holding hearings in secret is being transparent.
I'm just scratching the surface here. I can go on, virtually ad nauseum, if you like.
And that is the real trump derangement syndrome, the crazy belief that anything their hero does is perfectly acceptable. We are doomed....
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
One of the issues that is being cleared up in the three emoluments lawsuits is the definition or application of the word "emolument." Does it mean profit only or did the Founders intend the word to be used in a broader sense? For example, one interpretation says: "The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit," "benefit," or "advantage" of any kind. (Source).
You're not a constitutional expert and neither am I, so I'm not going to get into an interpretation argument here. My point is simply the issue is unsettled. This is why we have courts and legal experts to argue the cases. Believing it wrong for Trump to maintain business interests while he is president that conflict or potentially conflict with the national interest, I'm watching these cases with great interest. I am hopeful that the courts will also see this as wrong and so rule. When that is done, the legal basis will be clearly established and corrective action can be taken.
The Founding Fathers wrote fairly extensively on it. The primary goal was to prevent the President from being influenced by bribery, gifts, profits, and other schmoozing, both tangible and intangible.
I've never even tried to engage in an interpretational argument here, because, as I have stated numerous times, the Emoluments clause has never been adjudicated. (and I've used that very word nearly, if not every time I've discussed it). And since it's never been adjudicated, and I have no clue as to how the High Court might rule, it's impossible to make an argument on interpretation.
My personal opinion is to use common sense. Profits from existing businesses, during the course of normal business, unless they are suddenly wildly out of whack since the election, shouldn't be considered an emolument, since they aren't totable enough to be noticed. Plus, in Trump's case, the Trump Organization ceased doing any and all new international business since the election, and neither the organization or Trump has made any overtly obvious attempts to solicit influence, foreign or domestic.
Congress is constitutionally enumerated as the sole arbiter of what is and is not acceptable under the Title of Nobility Clause. Congress can consent to something, either by formal vote or by tacit silent consent (and they have in the past done both, and appears they are doing the latter currently) or they can refuse consent outright (as they have also done in the past). All I know for sure is, the people who elected Trump knew full well about his businesses, and they elected him anyway. There's no getting around that. And unless he abuses the privilege, they're OK with it.
So far, there is no evidence that Trump has acted in favor of his business interests to the detriment or in conflict with the interests of the nation. In fact, there are many examples of Trump putting the nation's interest above his own. There are, as you note, plenty of "potential" conflicts. The potentials, the what-ifs, the might dos, those are the bread and butter of the evidentiary catalog of the anti-Trumper looking to bring him down. Whether it's the possibility of Trump having his finger on the button and killing us all, to him getting us into endless wars, to him crashing the stock market, to him using his position to enrich himself, they all fall apart as nothing more than what people are afraid he might do, and never rises to the level what what he actually did do. They want to take a "might could" and turn it into a crime worthy of impeachment. It's breathtakingly infantile.
It would seem that you are implying that I am included in the "their" category. If so, you would be incorrect.