Discussion about hot topics trending today

[jelgate]

Now taking bets on what excuse Annoyed uses. My money is all politicians do crooked things

[Annoyed]

Now for the latest constitutional destroying act of trump:
https://www.afr.com/world/north-amer...0191018-p531u8

Emoluments clause violation 101.

Site is behind a paywall. Looks interesting. I'll give it a few days to see if it pops up someplace else. But I have heard the name of that hotel in the past day or two. Dunno yet.

[Gatefan1976]

Site is behind a paywall. Looks interesting. I'll give it a few days to see if it pops up someplace else. But I have heard the name of that hotel in the past day or two. Dunno yet.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1WX2AJ

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...lems-its-worse

https://www.foxnews.com/media/andrew...oral-resort-g7

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/18/fox...ution_partner/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/ho...ummit-location

[Gatefan1976]

Need more?

[Annoyed]

According to the one Fox article, "The White House said President Trump won't profit off the decision to host the summit at a Trump resort."
Come to think of it, I heard something like that on the radio, too.

If he ain't making money on the deal, what's the problem?

[Gatefan1976]

According to the one Fox article, "The White House said President Trump won't profit off the decision to host the summit at a Trump resort."
Come to think of it, I heard something like that on the radio, too.

If he ain't making money on the deal, what's the problem?

Because he IS making money, and making money is not even the point of the emoluments clause. It's accepting gifts, and a gift does not require money.
damn, how deep is your head in the sand?

Oh, and there were two fox articles.

[Gatefan1976]

[SoulReaver]

Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi sends Trump his regards

#MIGA (Make ISIS Great Again)

[jelgate]

Skip the middle man and send your regards to Putin

[Annoyed]

Ok, looks like its another plateful of vapor.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...at-trump-hotel

Mulvaney said the Doral property was one of 12 that was under consideration and that it was ultimately chosen in part because of its proximity to airports, landing zones and hospitals. The acting chief of staff dismissed criticism that the property’s selection violates the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits presidents from accepting payments from foreign countries, U.S. states or the federal government.

"I get the criticisms. So does [Trump]… but no, there’s no issue here on him profiting from this in any way, shape or form," Mulvaney said. "If you think it's going to help his brand, that's great, but I would suggest that he doesn't need much help promoting his brand."

Kinda sounds like his joint was in the best place. Which is where a hotel would want to be, I would think.

He's not making a profit off it, so what's the big deal?

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, looks like its another plateful of vapor.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...at-trump-hotel



Kinda sounds like his joint was in the best place. Which is where a hotel would want to be, I would think.

He's not making a profit off it, so what's the big deal?

As I said before, he IS.
Either quote the entire text of the article, or just provide a link so people can see the bias YOU are putting into it by missing most of the article.

[Annoyed]

As I said before, he IS.
Either quote the entire text of the article, or just provide a link so people can see the bias YOU are putting into it by missing most of the article.

Happy link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...67e_story.html

The White House STILL says the hotel is going to host it at cost, so no profit will be made by Trumps' hotel.
Seem to me that it's in the best location for the conference, and with the hotel hosting at cost, it will be cheaper than other alternatives. Win-Win all around.

Which leaves the complaints about it as yet more sour grapes from Trump's enemies.

[aretood2]

Happy link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...67e_story.html

The White House STILL says the hotel is going to host it at cost, so no profit will be made by Trumps' hotel.
Seem to me that it's in the best location for the conference, and with the hotel hosting at cost, it will be cheaper than other alternatives. Win-Win all around.

Which leaves the complaints about it as yet more sour grapes from Trump's enemies.

From the article: "But neither the White House nor the Trump Organization answered more detailed questions about what that means. They did not provide specific dollar amounts or say whether dollar amounts have been agreed to."

Which means there's a lack of transparency here. Not to mention, not having profit doesn't mean that his hotel isn't being helped here. It means it gets to stay in business, everyone there gets paid not out of whatever reserves of cash that Trump's company has but from our tax money. We are effectively funding Trump's hotel here. And then there's the added issue that his hotels have not operated "at cost" when involving government business in the past nor when hosting Trump's getaways that his hotels and resorts happily charge the government at full price for (which are higher in number than Obama's so where's the GOP outrage there?). Then add assigning military personal to stay at his hotels overseas. Unless Trump is going to refund the government (and by extension the people) all of the profit his properties have gained out of all of this, this little G-7 thing is a meaningless and pointless gesture meant to provide cover for him.

Then there's the added marketing that his hotel gets thanks to the summit which does translate into actual dollars. It is very convenient that his hotel for the first time ever is the best location. Totally not a coincidence and the white house who is known for peddling lies (especially the President) is most certainly being honest here...note the sarcasm.

Let's continue with the coincidences here. More from the article "The summit is scheduled for June, which is typically one of the resort’s slowest months with less than 40 percent of rooms occupied, and will likely fill the hotel with hundreds of diplomats, journalists and security personnel."

Interesting, it seems that this would actually help produce a profit for his hotel, or at least income where there usually wouldn't be any.

Here's another interesting quote from the article you posted "The White House has not explained how Trump would estimate the cost of hosting visitors at a resort whose expenses include staff, administration, maintenance and debt payments. It also has not said whether any outsider could challenge Trump’s estimate: In this unprecedented transaction, Trump is effectively negotiating with himself, as both buyer and seller, with taxpayers picking up the bill."

So Trump sets the prices, that is the "cost" at which he will charge America, and America (lead by Trump) will have to negotiate those prices...can anyone say conflict of interest here?

By the way, when people talk about corrupt presidents, governors, and congressmen in Latin America...this is the exact same type of they they complain about. It's not about getting money from druglords (though it does happen at times) it's about insider trading and steering money to their businesses just like Trump is doing. He probably got a few pointers from Latin America on how to do this.

And there's a lot more in that article too that is pretty damning....did you not read it?

[jelgate]

For someone who always thinks their is a hidden agenda, you do seem to be blindly believe what the WH says

[Gatefan1976]

From the article: "But neither the White House nor the Trump Organization answered more detailed questions about what that means. They did not provide specific dollar amounts or say whether dollar amounts have been agreed to."

Which means there's a lack of transparency here. Not to mention, not having profit doesn't mean that his hotel isn't being helped here. It means it gets to stay in business, everyone there gets paid not out of whatever reserves of cash that Trump's company has but from our tax money. We are effectively funding Trump's hotel here. And then there's the added issue that his hotels have not operated "at cost" when involving government business in the past nor when hosting Trump's getaways that his hotels and resorts happily charge the government at full price for (which are higher in number than Obama's so where's the GOP outrage there?). Then add assigning military personal to stay at his hotels overseas. Unless Trump is going to refund the government (and by extension the people) all of the profit his properties have gained out of all of this, this little G-7 thing is a meaningless and pointless gesture meant to provide cover for him.

Then there's the added marketing that his hotel gets thanks to the summit which does translate into actual dollars. It is very convenient that his hotel for the first time ever is the best location. Totally not a coincidence and the white house who is known for peddling lies (especially the President) is most certainly being honest here...note the sarcasm.

Let's continue with the coincidences here. More from the article "The summit is scheduled for June, which is typically one of the resort’s slowest months with less than 40 percent of rooms occupied, and will likely fill the hotel with hundreds of diplomats, journalists and security personnel."

Interesting, it seems that this would actually help produce a profit for his hotel, or at least income where there usually wouldn't be any.

Here's another interesting quote from the article you posted "The White House has not explained how Trump would estimate the cost of hosting visitors at a resort whose expenses include staff, administration, maintenance and debt payments. It also has not said whether any outsider could challenge Trump’s estimate: In this unprecedented transaction, Trump is effectively negotiating with himself, as both buyer and seller, with taxpayers picking up the bill."

So Trump sets the prices, that is the "cost" at which he will charge America, and America (lead by Trump) will have to negotiate those prices...can anyone say conflict of interest here?

By the way, when people talk about corrupt presidents, governors, and congressmen in Latin America...this is the exact same type of they they complain about. It's not about getting money from druglords (though it does happen at times) it's about insider trading and steering money to their businesses just like Trump is doing. He probably got a few pointers from Latin America on how to do this.

And there's a lot more in that article too that is pretty damning....did you not read it?

Of course he neither read it, or if he did, did not understand it.
Look at what he quotes just from people here.
If it becomes "too hard" it gets cut.