Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

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."

It will no doubt take time to work out the details.

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.

What do you mean "stay in business"? You don't think that hotel can survive a slow week?
He has said that he will provide the service on an at cost basis. Seems reasonable to me.

"his properties" ?? As in plural?
So you claim all of his properties because of one event? I wonder what the true agenda is there.

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.

As opposed to to unbiased reporting available in most media? And you can't do anything about publicity. How would you prevent that?

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."

And when was the meeting held this year? June 8/9 in the land of good beer? Couldn't be that that is just when this thing is held annually, could it? Nah, can't blame that on Trump, so that must not be it.

Speaking of beer, I need another one.

[SoulReaver]

You don't think that hotel can survive a slow week?

slow week means revenue shortfall so if he artificially compensates for that by using g7 to bring in extra clients then that alone is profit

He has said that he will provide the service on an at cost basis.

lol
care to define "at cost"?

And you can't do anything about publicity. How would you prevent that?

?how about not hosting g7 at his damn hotel? '_'

[aretood2]

It will no doubt take time to work out the details.

What do you mean "stay in business"? You don't think that hotel can survive a slow week?
He has said that he will provide the service on an at cost basis. Seems reasonable to me.

"At cost" does not mean "Free" or "At a discount". It means that the hotel/resort will charge enough for it to pay the costs of hosting. This includes the paychecks of staff, utility bills, and CEO payrolls and so on. Profit means making more than what was spent. Making money at cost means not losing money. Not to mention, a hotel only needs X amount of rooms to be occupied at any given time to break even. So this whole "At cost" thing opens up a lot of questions. does this mean that the government won't be charged for it if the hotel breaks even with its regular business? Or are they going to charge the government anyway at what they deem to be "at cost"?

For example, If 30% of occupancy is what's needed to operate at cost and it's normally operating at 40% in June, then shouldn't that mean that the government gets to use the place for free? What if that rate for cost is at 20%?

"his properties" ?? As in plural?
So you claim all of his properties because of one event? I wonder what the true agenda is there.

This isn't the first time something like this is done.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6e8_story.html

Trump routinely makes his presidential getaways at his properties and thus those properties charge the government for their use. Government officials and Secret Service etc...also stay at those properties. Then other examples like air force personnel staying at his Turnberry hotel in Scotland. This isn't an isolated incident but just one more example of the same issue.

As opposed to to unbiased reporting available in most media? And you can't do anything about publicity. How would you prevent that?

I don't see what media has to do with it. Hosting an international summit raises prestige and value, it's an economic thing not a media thing. Steering the summit towards his own property will pay off down the road, big time. It is a suspicious move at the very least.

And when was the meeting held this year? June 8/9 in the land of good beer? Couldn't be that that is just when this thing is held annually, could it? Nah, can't blame that on Trump, so that must not be it.

This year it was held in August. No rule exists that it has to be held in June nor has it always been held in June.

[Annoyed]

"At cost" does not mean "Free" or "At a discount". It means that the hotel/resort will charge enough for it to pay the costs of hosting. This includes the paychecks of staff, utility bills, and CEO payrolls and so on. Profit means making more than what was spent. Making money at cost means not losing money. Not to mention, a hotel only needs X amount of rooms to be occupied at any given time to break even. So this whole "At cost" thing opens up a lot of questions. does this mean that the government won't be charged for it if the hotel breaks even with its regular business? Or are they going to charge the government anyway at what they deem to be "at cost"?

For example, If 30% of occupancy is what's needed to operate at cost and it's normally operating at 40% in June, then shouldn't that mean that the government gets to use the place for free? What if that rate for cost is at 20%?

The guy runs hotels. He has been doing that since the 80's or so. It's what he does. And he has a lot of them.
Hotels are pretty much an accepted part of life these days; people just aren't smart enough to stay home. It stands to reason that some of his are going to be in high-demand locations.
I'm quite sure that he or his staff can figure out how to run the thing and keep the books balanced according to his intent, which is to do the job "at cost". Will/Should he get expenses back? Yes. That's fair.

Frankly, as it stands now, I dom't see a problem here.

But then again, I'm not looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy to claim that he should be sent packing, am I?

[jelgate]

Worse. You look for an excuse no matter how flimsy or factless to support Trump

[Gatefan1976]

The guy runs hotels. He has been doing that since the 80's or so. It's what he does. And he has a lot of them.

"the guy" is supposed to be worried more about your nation than his hotels.
Doesn't his show of concern for his properties give you pause about what he actually cares about?

Hotels are pretty much an accepted part of life these days; people just aren't smart enough to stay home. It stands to reason that some of his are going to be in high-demand locations.

Hotels have been around for centruaries, they have just not been owned and operated by rulers of nations claiming they get no kick-back from them.

I'm quite sure that he or his staff can figure out how to run the thing and keep the books balanced

But according to public record, they can't and haven't. History of trumps dealings shows he fails at damn near all his ventures.
But hey, who cares about history.

according to his intent, which is to do the job "at cost". Will/Should he get expenses back? Yes. That's fair.

You ACTUALLY believe him?
ROFLMFAO!!!!
wow, you really do have trump derangement syndrome.
A hint dude, he doesn't represent you, or even republican values, he is using your taxpayer money to line his own pocket, and saying he can because you can't say the president is doing anything illegal.
and you buy it, all the time.
ROFLMFAO!!!

Frankly, as it stands now, I dom't see a problem here.

Of course you don't, you are so woefully ignorant of the law and economics you think it's "ok"
If you were in his place, you would commit the same legal and ethical violations, because you lack legal knowledge, and ethics.

But then again, I'm not looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy to claim that he should be sent packing, am I?

It's not flimsy, you just don't understand it, so you "poo-poo, handwave it away" because you think you are getting what you want.
You don't vote your pocketbook, you vote based on the ignorance you are pavlovian trained to believe.

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.news.com.au/world/joe-hi...5836a5db188334

[Annoyed]

Game over anyway.

Trump reverses course and says his Florida resort won't be used for G7 summit

He didn't really care either way. Or he would have stuck to his guns. Is that the attitude of of someone trying to exploit his position?

[Gatefan1976]

Game over anyway.

Trump reverses course and says his Florida resort won't be used for G7 summit

He didn't really care either way. Or he would have stuck to his guns. Is that the attitude of of someone trying to exploit his position?

Sounds like someone can't handle the heat.

[Annoyed]

Sounds like someone can't handle the heat.

Or someone who is thinking "This ain't worth the aggravation".

[Gatefan1976]

Or someone who is thinking "This ain't worth the aggravation".

Listen up you foolish boy, just because your obvious crime fails, does not mean you did not try to commit it.
You are worse than trump, he is an ignorant fool, you have a functional brain, yet go along with him.
Sad.

[jelgate]

Or someone who is thinking "This ain't worth the aggravation".

You're half right. People are seeing through his con so it wont profit his hotel as much as he wanted

[Annoyed]

Listen up you foolish boy, just because your obvious crime fails, does not mean you did not try to commit it.
You are worse than trump, he is an ignorant fool, you have a functional brain, yet go along with him.
Sad.

Not quite. What I DON'T follow is the media, which jumps on any tiny thing as an excuse to investigate and try to remove him from office, which is what this really is, just another in a lomng line of failed attempts to undo 2016.

Heck, if Trump leaves the toilet seat up, they'll start an investigation. They have less than zero credibility in anything regarding Trump.

[jelgate]

Actually you do. You jump on board Trump's propaganda and believe everything his says no matter how far fetched

[aretood2]

The guy runs hotels. He has been doing that since the 80's or so. It's what he does. And he has a lot of them.
Hotels are pretty much an accepted part of life these days; people just aren't smart enough to stay home. It stands to reason that some of his are going to be in high-demand locations.
I'm quite sure that he or his staff can figure out how to run the thing and keep the books balanced according to his intent, which is to do the job "at cost". Will/Should he get expenses back? Yes. That's fair.

Irrelevant? A kick back is a kick back is a kick back and kick backs are illegal. If he had an independent group (hard under his "Loyalty to me above all" approach to governance) then it wouldn't be a problem. But it was chosen by his yesmen. He has done a good job at getting rid of patriots in his whitehouse and leaving behind yesmen who are more loyal to either him or the GOP than to the US.

Frankly, as it stands now, I dom't see a problem here.

You would if it were Obama.

But then again, I'm not looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy to claim that he should be sent packing, am I?

Quite the opposite actually. You are looking for any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to claim that he is doing nothing wrong.

Game over anyway.

Trump reverses course and says his Florida resort won't be used for G7 summit

He didn't really care either way. Or he would have stuck to his guns. Is that the attitude of of someone trying to exploit his position?

Or he found himself caught with his hand in the cookie jar and realized that he can't deal with another impeachable accusation.

Not quite. What I DON'T follow is the media, which jumps on any tiny thing as an excuse to investigate and try to remove him from office, which is what this really is, just another in a lomng line of failed attempts to undo 2016.

Heck, if Trump leaves the toilet seat up, they'll start an investigation. They have less than zero credibility in anything regarding Trump.

Why? The GOP was adamant that impeachment is meant to be a political when it was Bill Clinton sitting in the hot seat "You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds of your role. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office".

That was Lindsey Graham, hypocrite extraordinaire. He is indicative of the GOP. Earlier condemning Trump rightfully so for so many things and all of a sudden Trump is this great awesome messiah. In the 1990s the GOP thought an affair between two consenting adults is grounds for investigation that lead to an impeachment and now a quid pro quo (that the white house admitted via Mulvaney).

And you keep going with that crap about the media. I remember how critical places like Fox News was about Obama. For example, there was the thing with Obama and a tan suit.