"Donald Trump Reports He’s Getting Rich as President"

[Twilight Hue]

If it's really that big of a problem, there's always the Emolument Clause.

 

[leibowde84]

He gets paid no different than any others in office. Or did he take less than his predecessors.....

He's "taken" a ridiculous amount more than his predecessors. He actually promised that he would donate his entire salary, but he hasn't even managed to follow thru on that, even though he's making tons on the side.

 

[leibowde84]

If it's really that big of a problem, there's always the Emolument Clause.

Old news. Many lawmakers and AGs filed a lawsuit this past week against him for violating the emoluments clause.

 

[tytlyf]

Sorry MSM but most Presidents, including the Founding Fathers, ran their businesses while being President
Does the Constitution put limits on a president’s private business ties? - National Constitution Center

Do you have any reputable sources instead of blogs?

 

[esmith]

Your first source sucks. It literally has an ad for viagra on the page. .

Ever hear of Pay-Per-Click Marketing? This will answer your above issue

 

[Falvlun]

Ever hear of Pay-Per-Click Marketing? This will answer your above issue

I still addressed the argument in your crappy source, so you could respond to that.

The second source didn't look bad but I don't see how it supports your argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ever hear of Pay-Per-Click Marketing? This will answer your above issue

Still doesn't address the issue that your second link basically says Trump is treading on very thing ice - so thin that even a civilian may potentially be able to break it.

 

[esmith]

I still addressed the argument in your crappy source, so you could respond to that.

The second source didn't look bad but I don't see how it supports your argument.

If those that wrote the Constitution had a problem with President's operating a business while holding the Office of the President one would think they would have so noted in the Constitution

Still doesn't address the issue that your second link basically says Trump is treading on very thing ice - so thin that even a civilian may potentially be able to break it.

Yes we know that there are those out there who think this is an illegitimate presidency and or that President Trump is not fit to be President and or disagree with his agenda will attempt any means necessary to see him removed from office and look for every possible way to do so.
I may or may not agree with everything that he has put forward, just as I have with the past 9 Presidents, (number 10 wasn't in office long enough or do anything that I disagreed with at that time). However, I have never seen the amount of angst that President Trump is facing. The country is divided, but there is something called voting. Those that are dissatisfied with the outcome of the 2016 election should look inward and realize that they backed a loosing horse. The people of this country have spoken in accordance with the Constitutional procedures for electing a President.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes we know that there are those out there who think this is an illegitimate presidency and or that President Trump is not fit to be President and or disagree with his agenda will attempt any means necessary to see him removed from office and look for every possible way to do so.

That still doesn't support your position, or provide a defense for your provided link that does not agree with your position. The first link "Trump is doing nothing wrong or illegal," the second link "Trump is doing things that can bite him in the ***."

 

[Falvlun]

If those that wrote the Constitution had a problem with President's operating a business while holding the Office of the President one would think they would have so noted in the Constitution

That's really not a reasonable assumption. They weren't gods and they weren't omniscient.

As noted before, things work quite a bit differently than they did in 1775.

Also, I'm still confused about your inclusion of that second source. It lays out the argument as to why it's not good for Trump to remain so closely tied with his business, and how he can get in trouble for it. Do you disagree with your own source?

I'd also be interested in your responses to the questions posed in THIS post.

Just because there's not a law for something doesn't mean that something isn't a bad idea with negative repercussions. Even if you think that Trump is legally fine, do you believe that there is nothing of concern here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry MSM but most Presidents, including the Founding Fathers, ran their businesses while being President
Does the Constitution put limits on a president’s private business ties? - National Constitution Center

This is satire, but it makes an important and relevant point:

http://www.theonion.com/amp/55143

 

[UpperLimits]

This whole topic is just silly. But it demonstrates the mentality of the left wing naysayers who will do anything at all, with no reservations whatsoever, in order to condemn Trump.

It's simply logical that Trump would be making big bucks. Since taking office the market has skyrocketed. In the past 4 months, even I have been able to make up all of my losses from the past 8 years under Obama, AND THEN profit on top of that. Business is doing well. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their political blinders off. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that Trump would not have been invested in the market. Of course he's getting rich - DUH!!!

 

[tytlyf]

This whole topic is just silly. But it demonstrates the mentality of the left wing naysayers who will do anything at all, with no reservations whatsoever, in order to condemn Trump.

It's simply logical that Trump would be making big bucks. Since taking office the market has skyrocketed. In the past 4 months, even I have been able to make up all of my losses from the past 8 years under Obama, AND THEN profit on top of that. Business is doing well. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their political blinders off. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that Trump would not have been invested in the market. Of course he's getting rich - DUH!!!

You're looking at it wrong. He could be violating the constitution. This was talked about months ago.

What is the ‘Emoluments Clause’? Does it apply to President Trump?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html

 

[Twilight Hue]

Old news. Many lawmakers and AGs filed a lawsuit this past week against him for violating the emoluments clause.

I don't think there actually is any violation of the clause in a direct way.

I'm hoping it just puts an end to things once and for all, and get back to what's really important. Like you know, running the country, and addressing the state of the union.

All of this just smacks of revenge politics anyways.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think there actually is any violation of the clause in a direct way.

I'm hoping it just puts an end to things once and for all, and get back to what's really important. Like you know, running the country, and addressing the state of the union.

All of this just smacks of revenge politics anyways.

Trump is free to follow thru with his Agenda. Nothing is stopping him. He just can't keep his focus off of the Russia investigation. Instead of working, he constantly just complains and/or continuously talks about how good of a job he is doing. But, I guess that's what narcissists do. He just can't handle bad press, and if he can't learn to, he will never get anything done. The media is getting good ratings with the Russia investigation, Trump's implosion via tweets, etc. So, it's not going to stop anytime soon. And, the new lawsuit has nothing to do with the Russia investigation. It is a completely seperate matter.

He is 100%, without a doubt, violating the emoluments clause though. He is obviously accepting money from foreign governments even when a leader stays at his hotel. He could have easily avoided this by using a blind trust. Instead, he used his own family members, which is not nearly sufficient.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it demonstrates the mentality of the left wing naysayers who will do anything at all, with no reservations whatsoever, in order to condemn Trump.

I think it's funny that the Right is just fine and dandy with the President not making it obviously clear his loyalties lie first and foremost with America.

It's simply logical that Trump would be making big bucks. Since taking office the market has skyrocketed. In the past 4 months, even I have been able to make up all of my losses from the past 8 years under Obama, AND THEN profit on top of that. Business is doing well. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their political blinders off. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that Trump would not have been invested in the market. Of course he's getting rich - DUH!!!

You're naive to think Trump wont try to rig the law to benefit his own businesses. After all, it seems like we paying for his visits to his own businesses. And what if he provides "legal perks" to a lucrative business partner, such as Saudi Arabia, in exchange for promotion and land rights?
That's why modern presidents have put their stuff in blind trusts, to help cleave off that potential area of corruption.

I don't think there actually is any violation of the clause in a direct way.

He does international business, makes money off his presidential status, and is all but openly flaunting the major concerns over him so openly doing business as the president.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Good for him! I am gonna enjoy this presidency! Chips anyone ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

He does international business, makes money off his presidential status, and is all but openly flaunting the major concerns over him so openly doing business as the president.

You think it's markedly different from the major scandal revolving around Obama and his open interests made in Solyndra while he was a sitting president, or the open buyouts and financial vestment made into major airline and auto industries?

The schematics seem fairly similar to me.

I don't think Trump is going to suffer any repercussions, at least no more than Obama did when in office, and subsequent departure as president once his term ended.

 

[UpperLimits]

You're naive to think Trump wont try to rig the law to benefit his own businesses.

Oh, you mean like corporate tax breaks that put money back into businesses so they can afford to continue to operate, expand and hire new people, instead of loading it into government coffers?? The scoundrel!!!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, you mean like corporate tax breaks that put money back into businesses so they can afford to continue to operate, expand and hire new people, instead of loading it into government coffers?? The scoundrel!!!!

Is that why the handful of business owners who actually matter in such things keep getting richer while everybody else is working more hours for less pay and benefits?