The Political Discussion Thread

[LtColCarter]

Trump said in the beginning that he'll accept $1.00 for his annual salary.
According to the following article, he is donating the rest of his "salary" as noted.

US Presidential salary is $400K / Year, and about $170K in expenses.

For anyone with the financial means to even think about running for the office in the first place, that's less than what we working folks put in the car for gas each week. Accepting it or not is an utterly meaningless gesture, for show purposes only. It means nothing.

Talk about late responses. I posted the original comment on May 1st.

[SGalisa]

Haven't had time to drop by to actually post...just lurk and read, except for the few times I did actually sneak some time in and post.

Spent past 2 months assisting in wound care, daily food and clothing needs and running errands for someone recovering from bone surgery. Been too tired to post, but had time to think about my *priorities* and enjoyed the few moments of relaxation I had without bothering to view the constant (negative) bantering going on in these politics and the other hot topics. Had enough STRESS in my life as it was.
..

Talk about late responses. I posted the original comment on May 1st.

Yes it was that lonnnnnng ago. I had to dig it out via GW's search feature.
I was waiting for one of your like-minded political allies to come up with the answer first, but obviously no one else did.

Since I happened to see the article the day I posted it (not when it was published), I thought I would be (generously) *kind* enough to share the info. I hate to leave certain questions go unanswered, if I have a remote interest in them as well.

Strange how I did notice when the question was inquired here first, and then nothing tangible showed up on the internet until May 17, 2018. Still no one else here responded to the salary question, so it didn't seem like people here felt anything that may have been revealed was "worth" sharing.

Trump said in the beginning that he'll accept $1.00 for his annual salary.
According to the following article, he is donating the rest of his "salary" as noted.

US Presidential salary is $400K / Year, and about $170K in expenses.

For anyone with the financial means to even think about running for the office in the first place, that's less than what we working folks put in the car for gas each week. Accepting it or not is an utterly meaningless gesture, for show purposes only. It means nothing.

So that same principle outlook would or should apply to Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican) former Governor of California, who took a $1.00 each year for his annual gov't salary (for income tax purposes). Also, same principle applies to former NYC, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is a mega-millionaire (or billionaire?) and owns multi-millions in his own media industry. He too, only took a $1.00 each year for his annual gov't salary (for income tax purposes). doubt if either donated their money back into the gov't pool to help the people. From what I perceived, they simply didn't take the rest of the gov't salary, which is also a form of giving back to the people.

So, Donald Trump can't do the same? Personally, I commend Trump for doing so and parting with the rest of his "so-called" salary, since I doubt either Obama nor any of the Clintons would part with their personal income salary and hand it over to other gov't project/agencies without blinking or missing one penny of it. People should be asking how many incoming presidents would just take a $1.00 each year for their annual gov't salary, and part with the rest by pouring it back into the very system they claim to be governing over?

Grant it, it's no sweat off the pool kitty when their is amply enough to going around several lifetimes to the persons who "own" it. But seriously, (generic) "we the people"s priorities are a bit mixed up if we snub our noses up at this, especially if WE were the persona in those exalted positions instead and choose to hoard every extra penny for our own gainful *pleasures*..! How many other "leaders" and celebrities of our world would easily give up and part with their properties or jewels--especially if they knew those items weren't *ever* coming back..? Would anyone..? Symbolic gesture isn't the point, it's what they actually DID with the money that counts, IMHO.

Yeah, people can argue Trump's not giving his personal empire of hotels over to the poor (yet), so he's being stingy... and even stingier by "employing" members of his own family into job positions he knows will get work flowing and goals accomplished. Yet he *is* using his OWN property to "vacation" at or entertain certain leaders of the world -- and HE is endlessly being criticized over it. Obama and other presidents had to use their own salary to in some exotic location to "vacation" somewhere that wasn't family owned or presented as a gift from another country. Jeeze people...! Reactions elsewhere on the internet are also freakin unbelievable ---- basically the same as here -- unphased by Trump's self-management system, yet still overly critical by what he is doing. IMO, seems nothing Trump does contrary to the Democrat/Socialistic agenda will ever be satisfactory enough to his naysayers.

Tho I may not be a whole-hearted "Trumpet" (I disagree with his crude manners on certain "things")...
I may be a "commoner" (or poor folk), but I also see positives in how Trump is utilizing his own properties, too, vs other leaders in our nation and around our world. Wish more of them (leaders of our world) would do the same and put back into the system their supposed *allotted* salary, especially if they already have enough to live on and don't need the extras.

Anyone with mega-millions, and billions, could afford to do this same "gesture" but how many actually do? That also goes for rich celebrities too.. and not giving to their favorite friends, but complete strangers. In the situations President Trump re-designated his "gov't" money to, portions of it went to recipients ("strangers" or people unrelated to him) and agency/projects that were neglected under President Obama's authoritative reign. I don't think that is something that either NYC,NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg nor Arnold Schwarzenegger while Governor of California did during their elected governing terms. No one seemed to complain when Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger took the $1.00 for their annual gov't salary.

[Coco Pops]

Wow so TMZ has now gone full MAGA.

We really do live in the upside down don't we?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tmz-go...ps-best-friend

https://thinkprogress.org/tmz-quietl...-bf703c24a68e/

And one bombshell

https://www.mediaite.com/online/tmz-...ers-in-report/

[Annoyed]

Haven't had time to drop by to actually post...just lurk and read, except for the few times I did actually sneak some time in and post.

Spent past 2 months assisting in wound care, daily food and clothing needs and running errands for someone recovering from bone surgery. Been too tired to post, but had time to think about my *priorities* and enjoyed the few moments of relaxation I had without bothering to view the constant (negative) bantering going on in these politics and the other hot topics. Had enough STRESS in my life as it was.
..




Yes it was that lonnnnnng ago. I had to dig it out via GW's search feature.
I was waiting for one of your like-minded political allies to come up with the answer first, but obviously no one else did.

Since I happened to see the article the day I posted it (not when it was published), I thought I would be (generously) *kind* enough to share the info. I hate to leave certain questions go unanswered, if I have a remote interest in them as well.

Strange how I did notice when the question was inquired here first, and then nothing tangible showed up on the internet until May 17, 2018. Still no one else here responded to the salary question, so it didn't seem like people here felt anything that may have been revealed was "worth" sharing.




So that same principle outlook would or should apply to Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican) former Governor of California, who took a $1.00 each year for his annual gov't salary (for income tax purposes). Also, same principle applies to former NYC, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is a mega-millionaire (or billionaire?) and owns multi-millions in his own media industry. He too, only took a $1.00 each year for his annual gov't salary (for income tax purposes). doubt if either donated their money back into the gov't pool to help the people. From what I perceived, they simply didn't take the rest of the gov't salary, which is also a form of giving back to the people.

So, Donald Trump can't do the same? Personally, I commend Trump for doing so and parting with the rest of his "so-called" salary, since I doubt either Obama nor any of the Clintons would part with their personal income salary and hand it over to other gov't project/agencies without blinking or missing one penny of it. People should be asking how many incoming presidents would just take a $1.00 each year for their annual gov't salary, and part with the rest by pouring it back into the very system they claim to be governing over?

Grant it, it's no sweat off the pool kitty when their is amply enough to going around several lifetimes to the persons who "own" it. But seriously, (generic) "we the people"s priorities are a bit mixed up if we snub our noses up at this, especially if WE were the persona in those exalted positions instead and choose to hoard every extra penny for our own gainful *pleasures*..! How many other "leaders" and celebrities of our world would easily give up and part with their properties or jewels--especially if they knew those items weren't *ever* coming back..? Would anyone..? Symbolic gesture isn't the point, it's what they actually DID with the money that counts, IMHO.

Yeah, people can argue Trump's not giving his personal empire of hotels over to the poor (yet), so he's being stingy... and even stingier by "employing" members of his own family into job positions he knows will get work flowing and goals accomplished. Yet he *is* using his OWN property to "vacation" at or entertain certain leaders of the world -- and HE is endlessly being criticized over it. Obama and other presidents had to use their own salary to in some exotic location to "vacation" somewhere that wasn't family owned or presented as a gift from another country. Jeeze people...! Reactions elsewhere on the internet are also freakin unbelievable ---- basically the same as here -- unphased by Trump's self-management system, yet still overly critical by what he is doing. IMO, seems nothing Trump does contrary to the Democrat/Socialistic agenda will ever be satisfactory enough to his naysayers.

Tho I may not be a whole-hearted "Trumpet" (I disagree with his crude manners on certain "things")...
I may be a "commoner" (or poor folk), but I also see positives in how Trump is utilizing his own properties, too, vs other leaders in our nation and around our world. Wish more of them (leaders of our world) would do the same and put back into the system their supposed *allotted* salary, especially if they already have enough to live on and don't need the extras.

Anyone with mega-millions, and billions, could afford to do this same "gesture" but how many actually do? That also goes for rich celebrities too.. and not giving to their favorite friends, but complete strangers. In the situations President Trump re-designated his "gov't" money to, portions of it went to recipients ("strangers" or people unrelated to him) and agency/projects that were neglected under President Obama's authoritative reign. I don't think that is something that either NYC,NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg nor Arnold Schwarzenegger while Governor of California did during their elected governing terms. No one seemed to complain when Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger took the $1.00 for their annual gov't salary.

I don't care if it's Trump, Schwarzenegger or any one else; I say again, no matter who it is, at the income levels it takes to run successfully for these offices, that salary is a lower percentage of their incomes than I spend for gas for the lawn mowers. It means nothing to them. Showboating, plain and simple.

As far as the Democrats' complaining about Trump and his pre-existing financial empire, that's just Democrats being Democrats. Tax the rich till there are no rich no more, and claim to give the proceeds to the "poor", with a healthy percentage taken off the top, of course.
Oh, and I don't recall too much whining about wealthy Democrats holding on their pre-existing assets.

[aretood2]

I don't care if it's Trump, Schwarzenegger or any one else; I say again, no matter who it is, at the income levels it takes to run successfully for these offices, that salary is a lower percentage of their incomes than I spend for gas for the lawn mowers. It means nothing to them. Showboating, plain and simple.

As far as the Democrats' complaining about Trump and his pre-existing financial empire, that's just Democrats being Democrats. Tax the rich till there are no rich no more, and claim to give the proceeds to the "poor", with a healthy percentage taken off the top, of course.
Oh, and I don't recall too much whining about wealthy Democrats holding on their pre-existing assets.

That's because they placed them in a blind trust...in other words they didn't hold on to their pre-existing assets...

[Gatefan1976]

damn facts again.....……….

[Coco Pops]

Is this a little unsettling?

https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/st...34446697902082

[Gatefan1976]

Is this a little unsettling?

https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/st...34446697902082

errr, yes??

To be fair however, the Breitbart article, nor the person they were interviewing suggested "regime change" in the sense that the twit-ter person was.
Support is not "Direct Intervention"
Regime change is stuff like Boulton saying "we are looking at the Libyan model" for dealing with NoKo, in which the US said "disarm your nukes, and it will be cool", and they did, then the person they were dealing with got executed. Dude may have deserved it, sure, but so does Kim Jon.

[Annoyed]

That's because they placed them in a blind trust...in other words they didn't hold on to their pre-existing assets...

Didn't Trump place his holdings into a trust also? I think some family member is administering it?

The difference is I recall many lefites insisting that Trump completely divest himself of his empire, not just place it in a trust. Of course, their real aim was to attempt to disqualify him from holding the office.

[Starsaber]

Didn't Trump place his holdings into a trust also? I think some family member is administering it?

The difference is I recall many lefites insisting that Trump completely divest himself of his empire, not just place it in a trust. Of course, their real aim was to attempt to disqualify him from holding the office.

When his name is on the buildings and such, you can hardly say it's a blind trust. People know that he has ownership, whether he's running things day to day or not and can direct their business there assuming he'll find out about it.

I have to go through annual conflict of interest certification and training in my job and one thing that the training emphasizes time and again is that the goal is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The president should be held to at least the same standard as a software engineer.

[Annoyed]

When his name is on the buildings and such, you can hardly say it's a blind trust. People know that he has ownership, whether he's running things day to day or not and can direct their business there assuming he'll find out about it.

I have to go through annual conflict of interest certification and training in my job and one thing that the training emphasizes time and again is that the goal is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The president should be held to at least the same standard as a software engineer.

Blind trust means that he's not involved in day-to-day operations; he can't change its operations to take advantage of govt. policy that he enacts, etc. Some one else operates it in his place.

It doesn't mean that he can't own businesses, regardless of whether his name is on them or not.

[Chaka-Z0]

Blind trust means that he's not involved in day-to-day operations; he can't change its operations to take advantage of govt. policy that he enacts, etc. Some one else operates it in his place.

It doesn't mean that he can't own businesses, regardless of whether his name is on them or not.

Trump obviously hasn't been involved in day-to-day operations for a long time, even prior to his political career. When you're at the top of a company that size you're not dealing with office supplies orders.

He still has major interests AND is most likely the main shareholder in a private company on US soil, which is in itself a conflict of interest... you know when you are the President running the freaking country?

[Womble]

In case anyone had doubts that the goal of Obama's Iran deal was anything other than assisting USA's enemy in every way possible:

Secret Obama-era permit let Iran convert funds to dollars

ASHINGTON (AP) — After striking an elusive nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration found itself in a quandary in early 2016: Iran had been promised access to its long-frozen overseas reserves, including $5.7 billion stuck in an Omani bank.

To spend it, Iran wanted to convert the money into U.S. dollars and then euros, but top U.S. officials had repeatedly promised Congress that Iran would never gain access to America’s financial system.

Those assurances notwithstanding, the Obama administration secretly issued a license to let Iran sidestep U.S. sanctions for the brief moment required to convert the funds through an American bank, an investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday showed. The plan failed when two U.S. banks refused to participate.

...The Treasury Department license, issued in February 2016 and never disclosed, would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at Oman’s Bank of Muscat from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

The situation resulted from the fact that Iran had stored billions in Omani rials, a currency that’s notoriously hard to convert. The U.S. dollar is the world’s dominant currency, so allowing it to be used as a conversion instrument for Iranian assets was the easiest and most efficient way to speed up Iran’s access to its own funds.

“Yikes,” one former Treasury official told colleagues in an email, as described by the report. “It looks like we committed to a whole lot beyond just allowing the immobilized funds to settle out.”

The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.

Issuing the license was not illegal. Still, it went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement, in which the U.S. and world powers gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program.

The most transparent USA administration in history, ladies and gentlemen.

[Gatefan1976]

Why is Iran the enemy of the USA?
More specifically, how did it become an enemy.

[Coco Pops]

Why is Iran the enemy of the USA?
More specifically, how did it become an enemy.

Ask Bush and the his conservative cronies.... Or any past US administration. Remembe I think it was him that coined the "axis of evil" catchphrase