Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[metis]

Unlike all the other Presidents, Trump didn't come into the Presidency to make money.

Trump repeated violated the Emoluments Clause to the Constitution multiple times.

In case you're not familiar with it: What Is the Emoluments Clause?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None of these statements is sufficient to your claim that Trump made money from foreign powers, and you seem very intent on claiming he is thus beholden. You will have to do better if you want to substantiate your claim.

"The governments of six foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, spent more than $700,000 at then-President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC, hotel over the first two years of his presidency, according to newly released accounting documents."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/politics/trump-hotel-spending-foreign-governments/index.html

 

[Wandering Monk]

He already has been found guilty on civil charges, so the only thing left is to see how much taxes he must make up.

He has also been found guilty of real-estate fraud in the current NY civil fraud case by Judge Engoron. The current proceedings under that judge are for fines and penalties against the Trump org (disgorgement.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I've pointed out, Trump lost money as opposed to gaining money.

And as I've pointed out twice now, he received tens of millions of dollars from foreign powers.
Just because he's a terrible business man, and proceeded to lose all of that money, doesn't detract from the fact that HE RECEIVED TENS OF MILLLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM FOREIGN ENTITIES.

Sorry, but you don't just get to keep making the same claim over and over without addressing my responses.

What "trade-war" exactly are you talking about and how is it at all relevant to this?

"An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft.[1] The Trump administration stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China trade deficit, and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China.[2] In response to US trade measures, the Chinese government accused the Trump administration of engaging in nationalist protectionism and took retaliatory action.[3][4] After the trade war escalated through 2019, in January 2020 the two sides reached a tense phase one agreement; it expired in December 2021 with China failing by a wide margin to reach its targets for U.S. imports to China.[5][6][7] By the end of the Trump presidency, the trade war was widely characterized as a failure for the United States.[8][9] His successor, Joe Biden, however, has kept the tariffs in place.[10]"

China–United States trade war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So what? Did their staying at the hotel actually affect the merger they wanted? Is there any substance to the argument?

That violates the emoluments clause. Did you even read the article, or just cherry pick random sentences from it?

The commissioner shouldn't release Trump's tax returns regardless. The commisioner is not a foreign agent. Are you suggesting that Trump should not pay rent on his condos? What a nothing-burger.

What? Who suggested that?

Obviously the general was a threat to American lives in terms of the ongoing attacks he planned and was engaged in planning against Americans and didn't appear to have had any plans to attack Trump's properties. In fact, by attacking the general, Trump actually placed his properties at risk of retaliation! This actually suggests that Trump wasn't beholden to foreign powers on the basis of his international properties. Are you trying to rebutt your own claim?

No. Trump was the one who was the threat to American lives.

I'd like to see you complete your argument concerning this. I acknowledge that you are at least off to a start here. Foreign powers leasing a property. Sure it cleared the federal bureaucracy, which suggests nothing was actually amiss here, but the suggestion that he needed additional approval from Congress could be relevant. What else can you say? Can you link this to something Trump used the office of President for?

He violated the emoluments clause.

There nothing here indicating the businesses weren't operated normally. This attempt to smear him is weak.

He violated the emoluments clause.

No, I haven't, because the requests for him to release his tax returns were so evidently politically motivated and because he gave clear reasons why he didn't release them: the advice of lawyers and the ongoing audit. Did you imagine all sorts of horrible things were hiding in his tax returns? Maybe you think Obama was born in Kenya.

Every President who ever ran for office released his tax returns. That's normal practice.
Barack Obama released his tax returns, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up here.
The fact that Trump wouldn't release them is a huge red flag.

Financial losses are a motivation not to incur more losses by serving another term in the White House.

He made money while he was in the White House. As you yourself have admitted above (though you don't seem to know it).

Unlike all the other Presidents, Trump didn't come into the Presidency to make money. The wonderful thing about all those other Presidents is that they all made millions from their Presidencies.

LOL Is all I can say to this. Gimme a break.

Do you have a rebuttal to the point that Trump lost money instead of making money? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. The problem is you keep ignoring it.

Hypothetically, if a person in office received money from an oil company and in exchange weilded the power of his office to have a man removed who was responsible for investigating that oil company, that would be the sort of corruption I'm talking about. If you are wondering about Joe Biden, there is a thread for that. As for Trump, I'd like to know what you allege Trump did in return for alleged payments.

There's no evidence Joe Biden did any of that.

There's a ton of evidence that Trump received money from foreign powers/entities while in office.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'll repeat it because you might be ignoring it again: Trump lost $700 million in net worth during his term as President. If you really believe that Trump is eager to regain the Presidency because of all the supposed money he is going to make from foreign powers during another term in office, then I think you're delusional. And if you believe that all these other Presidents that have made millions of dollars, in many cases the practical entirety of their fortunes, from their terms in office as President are somehow the clean ones... then maybe you aren't evaluating these things as rationally as you think you are.

See above.

"During his campaign, the Trump Organization owed nearly $20 million to L/P Daewoo, a company with ties to North Korea. This debt was not mentioned in the Trump campaign's financial disclosure filings. The loan was paid off five months into his presidency.[37]

During his presidency, Trump reported over $1.6 billion of outside revenue and income from his companies, including the Trump Organization. "While Trump publicly took credit for donating his taxpayer-funded salary," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington noted, the presidential salary he donated was not even one-thousandth of what he was earning as a businessman.[38]

Political donations from small and large donors alike ended up funding Trump's personal businesses. During his presidency, his businesses received $8.5 million from political fundraising under his control, including the Trump campaign, and $2 million from other Republican fundraising sources.[39]

Though the Trump Organization claimed it would let federal employees who traveled with President Trump stay his properties “for free” or “at cost”, it charged the Secret Service up to $1,185 per night, generating over $1.4 million in Secret Service lodging expenses over four years. This bill is charged to taxpayers and paid to the Trump Organization.[40]

During the first two years of his term, the governments of China, Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates spent a combined total of over $700,000 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.[41]

For federal income taxes, Trump paid $750 in 2017; a combined $1.1 million in 2018 and 2019 (when his taxable income was nearly $23 million and nearly $3 million respectively); and nothing in 2020 (when he reported a loss of over $16 million).[42]"

Wealth of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ponder This]

"The governments of six foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, spent more than $700,000 at then-President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC, hotel over the first two years of his presidency, according to newly released accounting documents."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/politics/trump-hotel-spending-foreign-governments/index.html

According to your link:

There’s no evidence that the foreign spending at Trump’s hotel, which the Trump Organization sold earlier this year, directly affected US policy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to your link:

Can you point me to the part of the Emoluments Clause that would make payments from a foreign power legal if it doesn't influence policy?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

[Ponder This]

"An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft.[1] The Trump administration stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China trade deficit, and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China.[2] In response to US trade measures, the Chinese government accused the Trump administration of engaging in nationalist protectionism and took retaliatory action.[3][4] After the trade war escalated through 2019, in January 2020 the two sides reached a tense phase one agreement; it expired in December 2021 with China failing by a wide margin to reach its targets for U.S. imports to China.[5][6][7] By the end of the Trump presidency, the trade war was widely characterized as a failure for the United States.[8][9] His successor, Joe Biden, however, has kept the tariffs in place.[10]"

Hmm. There is nothing in this "trade war" that is relevant to the contract the Chinese company received. How am I not surprised.

That violates the emoluments clause. Did you even read the article, or just cherry pick random sentences from it?

I'm just looking for you to complete your argument, which is to say: stating what Trump was paid to do.

Every President who ever ran for office released his tax returns. That's normal practice.
Barack Obama released his tax returns, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up here.
The fact that Trump wouldn't release them is a huge red flag.

Ah, that one went over your head? Some people made a big deal about Obama not releasing his birth certificate while he was running for President despite the birth condition in the Constitution, and there were a bunch of loose rampaging theories going around the internet that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S. Some might say that Obama not releasing his birth certificate was a big red flag. Now here you are: going on about Trump not releasing his tax returns and calling it a "huge red flag". Of course, eventually his tax returns were made public (by nefarious politics) and it turned out it was a big to-do about nothing. I find your obsession with it funny.

He made money while he was in the White House. As you yourself have admitted above (though you don't seem to know it).

He experienced a $700 million loss in his net worth, which, in case you didn't know, is something we call "losing money". When you say he "made money", you're saying things like... some people payed to stay in his hotels. Bomb shell! LoL, okay...

He made money while he was in the White House. As you yourself have admitted above (though you don't seem to know it).

Normal business isn't anything to wonder about. If someone stays at a hotel, then we know what he paid for. The problem is, you haven't pointed to anything Trump did in return for money. In fact, Trump didn't even run his businesses while he was in office.

LOL Is all I can say to this. Gimme a break.

You don't think all the other Presidents made millions from being President? You're the one who ignored my links.

There's no evidence Joe Biden did any of that.

There's a thread for that, if you think otherwise. The point is that there is a complete argument there, whereas you do not have a complete argument here.

"During his campaign, the Trump Organization owed nearly $20 million to L/P Daewoo, a company with ties to North Korea. This debt was not mentioned in the Trump campaign's financial disclosure filings. The loan was paid off five months into his presidency.[37]

During his presidency, Trump reported over $1.6 billion of outside revenue and income from his companies, including the Trump Organization. "While Trump publicly took credit for donating his taxpayer-funded salary," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington noted, the presidential salary he donated was not even one-thousandth of what he was earning as a businessman.[38]

Political donations from small and large donors alike ended up funding Trump's personal businesses. During his presidency, his businesses received $8.5 million from political fundraising under his control, including the Trump campaign, and $2 million from other Republican fundraising sources.[39]

Though the Trump Organization claimed it would let federal employees who traveled with President Trump stay his properties “for free” or “at cost”, it charged the Secret Service up to $1,185 per night, generating over $1.4 million in Secret Service lodging expenses over four years. This bill is charged to taxpayers and paid to the Trump Organization.[40]

During the first two years of his term, the governments of China, Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates spent a combined total of over $700,000 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.[41]

For federal income taxes, Trump paid $750 in 2017; a combined $1.1 million in 2018 and 2019 (when his taxable income was nearly $23 million and nearly $3 million respectively); and nothing in 2020 (when he reported a loss of over $16 million).[42]"

You like to quote a lot, but none of the things you quote say what Trump supposedly did for any of these foreign powers. It's almost as if, all of this is exactly what it appears to be: legitimate business. Yet you've come on here claiming Trump is financially beholden to foreign powers and don't say a single thing Trump used his office of President for in return.

Of course, if I say, a certain someone met with oil executives and received $40,000 to use his elected office to fire a prosecutor (we can name foreign actor, amount paid, and abuse of office performed), you would dismiss that as didn't happen. What's the point of me even debating you?

 

[Shaul]

Can you point me to the part of the Emoluments Clause that would make payments from a foreign power legal if it doesn't influence policy?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Do you think Trump could be guilty of this?

Spoiler

Supreme Court ends Trump emoluments lawsuits

I guess the Court didn't think so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think Trump could be guilty of this?

Spoiler

Supreme Court ends Trump emoluments lawsuits

I guess the Court didn't think so.

Next time, maybe read your article before you post it, hmm?

 

[Shaul]

Next time, maybe read your article before you post it, hmm?

Read it. Says the question of whether Trump is guilty of it is moot.

 

[metis]

According to your link:

That's not the point as it is forbidden by the Constitution.

Also, Trump encouraged people to buy Ivanka's stuff, which is technically a violation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the point as it is forbidden by the Constitution.

And it sure seems like there might have been preferential treatment anyhow.

For instance, I invite @Ponder This to say with a straight face that he's absolutely sure that the terms of the $460 billion 2017 Saudi-US arms deal weren't influenced by the Saudis slipping Trump a little profit on the side.

2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm. There is nothing in this "trade war" that is relevant to the contract the Chinese company received. How am I not surprised.


I'm just looking for you to complete your argument, which is to say: stating what Trump was paid to do.

He violated the emoluments clause. What are you not getting here?

Ah, that one went over your head? Some people made a big deal about Obama not releasing his birth certificate while he was running for President despite the birth condition in the Constitution, and there were a bunch of loose rampaging theories going around the internet that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S. Some might say that Obama not releasing his birth certificate was a big red flag. Now here you are: going on about Trump not releasing his tax returns and calling it a "huge red flag". Of course, eventually his tax returns were made public (by nefarious politics) and it turned out it was a big to-do about nothing. I find your obsession with it funny.

What went over my head?

This was in response to, "Every President who ever ran for office released his tax returns. That's normal practice.
Barack Obama released his tax returns, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up here.
The fact that Trump wouldn't release them is a huge red flag."

Your response does not address this, and instead, deflects to the ridiculous claim that Trump was pushing that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama, did, by the way, release his birth certificate to the public. Not that he needed to, because the claim was beyond ridiculous.

Some of Trump's returns were released, and not by him. And now he's been tried for tax fraud. Oops.

He experienced a $700 million loss in his net worth, which, in case you didn't know, is something we call "losing money". When you say he "made money", you're saying things like... some people payed to stay in his hotels. Bomb shell! LoL, okay...

So he claimed. We now know he lied.

He took in money from foreign powers. Losing it afterward doesn't mean he didn't get it in the first place.

Normal business isn't anything to wonder about. If someone stays at a hotel, then we know what he paid for. The problem is, you haven't pointed to anything Trump did in return for money. In fact, Trump didn't even run his businesses while he was in office.

He did, in fact, run his businesses when he was in office. Just because he says that he didn't, doesn't mean he didn't. He's a known liar, you know.

You don't think all the other Presidents made millions from being President? You're the one who ignored my links.

"All the other presidents" divested their business interests upon becoming President. That's the ethical thing to do.
Trump did not. And pledges again that he will not if re-elected:

Trump won't pledge to divest from businesses if he wins second term

Trump resisted pressure during his first term in office to divest from his businesses, a tradition followed by all other modern presidents.

www.cnbc.com

There's a thread for that, if you think otherwise. The point is that there is a complete argument there, whereas you do not have a complete argument here.

There is no evidence. When asked, no Republican has ever provided any evidence whatsoever. The "whistleblower" testimony was a huge bust.

You like to quote a lot, but none of the things you quote say what Trump supposedly did for any of these foreign powers. It's almost as if, all of this is exactly what it appears to be: legitimate business. Yet you've come on here claiming Trump is financially beholden to foreign powers and don't say a single thing Trump used his office of President for in return.

How about looking the other way when the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia had a journalist dismembered and brutally murdered?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...woodward-khashoggi-murder-saving-***-1057940/

He also violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Or does the Constitution not matter anymore?

Of course, if I say, a certain someone met with oil executives and received $40,000 to use his elected office to fire a prosecutor (we can name foreign actor, amount paid, and abuse of office performed), you would dismiss that as didn't happen. What's the point of me even debating you?

Obviously you're talking about Joe Biden and several other world powers working together to have a corrupt prosecutor removed from his position. There isn't any evidence that Biden "met with oil executives and received $40,000" or the Republicans would be waving it around in everyone's faces. Face it, they've got nothing. It's rather pathetic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And it sure seems like there might have been preferential treatment anyhow.

For instance, I invite @Ponder This to say with a straight face that he's absolutely sure that the terms of the $460 billion 2017 Saudi-US arms deal weren't influenced by the Saudis slipping Trump a little profit on the side.

2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Trump completely looked the other way when the Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman had journalist Jamal Khashoggi brutally murdered.
Why?

...

"PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENLY bragged about protecting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from scrutiny after the royal was accused of orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of a Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Trump told Woodward in January that he “saved” the prince’s “***,” justifying his efforts by noting that the Saudis bought arms from the United States, and explaining the country has oil and “religious monuments” that bestow “real power.”

Asked repeatedly if he believed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Trump answered “He says he didn’t do it.” The CIA has concluded Salman did order the murder. Intelligence reports indicate that 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul in October 2018, where they murdered Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate, sawed his body into pieces, and removed it in several plastic trash bags.

Acting on that assessment, members of both parties advanced measures to hold bin Salman accountable, including a resolution labeling him complicit in Khashoggi’s murder. The Senate unanimously voted to approve that measure in December of 2018, and every member of the House — save for seven Republicans — voted for the resolution as well.

But Trump and members of his administration have openly and consistently expressed doubt about bin Salman’s involvement, contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said there was no “direct reporting” of MBS’s guilt, while former Secretary of Defense James Mattis maintained there was no “smoking gun.”

Trump’s refusal to hold bin Salman accountable has had major consequences for the region. A majority of lawmakers have voted to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s military efforts in Yemen — a war that has perpetuated a horrific humanitarian crisis in the region. In 2019, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate passed legislation to block or limit U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. The votes came after the Trump administration used an emergency declaration to ink a deal that would sell $8.1 billion in armaments to the three countries without Congress’ approval.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...woodward-khashoggi-murder-saving-***-1057940/

​

 

[Ponder This]

And it sure seems like there might have been preferential treatment anyhow.

For instance, I invite @Ponder This to say with a straight face that he's absolutely sure that the terms of the $460 billion 2017 Saudi-US arms deal weren't influenced by the Saudis slipping Trump a little profit on the side.

2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah...of course I try not to claim things absolutely, because I try to be open to possibilities as opposed to closed to them.
However, I read your link and didn't see any support for your insinuation. So... with a straight face, I easily say that what you've claimed looks like more baseless accusation.

 

[Ponder This]

He violated the emoluments clause. What are you not getting here?

It's on you to make a complete argument... some people stayed at a hotel... wow.

What went over my head?

If you still don't get it, then that's on you.

This was in response to, "Every President who ever ran for office released his tax returns. That's normal practice.
Barack Obama released his tax returns, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up here.
The fact that Trump wouldn't release them is a huge red flag."

It seems you've lost track of the thread (oops!) as I responded to:

Have you never wondered why he wouldn't release his tax returns?

with

No, I haven't, because the requests for him to release his tax returns were so evidently politically motivated and because he gave clear reasons why he didn't release them: the advice of lawyers and the ongoing audit.

in the context of you trying to say that Trump was beholden to foreign powers.

So he claimed. We now know he lied.

He took in money from foreign powers. Losing it afterward doesn't mean he didn't get it in the first place.

What do you mean "he claimed"? It was the Bloomberg Billionaires Index that claimed that Trump lost $700 billion during his Presidency - not Trump. What do you mean "he lied"?

He took in money from foreign powers. Losing it afterward doesn't mean he didn't get it in the first place.

By that you mean "foreign powers" came and stayed in his hotel in DC and.. (drumroll)... payed for their stay. *gasp*
yes, that's right folks, people stayed in a hotel, and you are here claiming Trump is "financially beholden" to them.

He did, in fact, run his businesses when he was in office. Just because he says that he didn't, doesn't mean he didn't. He's a known liar, you know.

Okay, another claim that Trump lies... (oldest accusation: politicians lie) When Trump became President, his businesses were placed in a trust run by two trustees: Donald Trump Jr. and the executive of the Trump Organization. You'll have to expound upon what you mean what you say he lied (again), when we know that his businessess were in a trust while he was President.

"All the other presidents" divested their business interests upon becoming President. That's the ethical thing to do.
Trump did not. And pledges again that he will not if re-elected:

As far as I can tell, it appears that your link does not say "All the other presidents" divested their business interests upon becoming President and reading your link it would appear that the contrary is the case. Checking the politifact link:

There’s no question that Mount Vernon, Washington’s plantation, was an ongoing business concern during his presidency.

But this is beside the point that I made about the fact "all the other" recent Presidents (at least since Ronald Reagan) have made millions of dollars from their Presidencies.

There is no evidence. When asked, no Republican has ever provided any evidence whatsoever. The "whistleblower" testimony was a huge bust.

You've made your denial of that evidence clear. However, I was informing you what a complete argument would look like: foreign power, amount paid, and use of office, and pointing out that you aren't presenting a complete argument.

How about looking the other way when the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia had a journalist dismembered and brutally murdered?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...woodward-khashoggi-murder-saving-***-1057940/
He also violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Or does the Constitution not matter anymore?

Your link failed. What about Khashoggi?

He also violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Or does the Constitution not matter anymore?

You never completed the argument. It would be nice if you could. It appears the justices dismissed cases about alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And since I don't think you've made a complete argument, you really do need to explain what you are arguing more carefully.

Obviously you're talking about Joe Biden and several other world powers working together to have a corrupt prosecutor removed from his position. There isn't any evidence that Biden "met with oil executives and received $40,000" or the Republicans would be waving it around in everyone's faces. Face it, they've got nothing. It's rather pathetic.

Well, they (some Republicans) are waving it around in people's faces (Comer, in particular) - that doesn't mean everyone believes them. Your a case in point. But the point I'm making in this thread is that they've make a complete argument: foreign power, payment, and use of office in return for that payment. They say a meeting that took place between Joe Biden and Burisma. They say financial transactions occurred to transfer the money from Burisma to Joe Biden (and others) - Joe Biden receiving $40000 for this particular service. And they say what Joe Biden did for Burisma (get Shokin fired). You may disagree with the pieces, but there's a complete argument start to finish. The reason I bring it up is because you continue to not make a complete argument and then expect me to just agree with your conclusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all you mean to argue is that Trump owns a large international business... then there's no disagreement about that, and I don't regard owning a large international business as being enough reason to not vote for Trump in 2024. Since this thread is supposed to be about why or why not Trump in 2024, perhaps you can give a reason that you would or would not vote for Trump in 2024.

 

[metis]

It's on you to make a complete argument... some people stayed at a hotel... wow.


If you still don't get it, then that's on you.


It seems you've lost track of the thread (oops!) as I responded to:


with

in the context of you trying to say that Trump was beholden to foreign powers.


What do you mean "he claimed"? It was the Bloomberg Billionaires Index that claimed that Trump lost $700 billion during his Presidency - not Trump. What do you mean "he lied"?

By that you mean "foreign powers" came and stayed in his hotel in DC and.. (drumroll)... payed for their stay. *gasp*
yes, that's right folks, people stayed in a hotel, and you are here claiming Trump is "financially beholden" to them.


Okay, another claim that Trump lies... (oldest accusation: politicians lie) When Trump became President, his businesses were placed in a trust run by two trustees: Donald Trump Jr. and the executive of the Trump Organization. You'll have to expound upon what you mean what you say he lied (again), when we know that his businessess were in a trust while he was President.


As far as I can tell, it appears that your link does not say "All the other presidents" divested their business interests upon becoming President and reading your link it would appear that the contrary is the case. Checking the politifact link:

But this is beside the point that I made about the fact "all the other" recent Presidents (at least since Ronald Reagan) have made millions of dollars from their Presidencies.

You've made your denial of that evidence clear. However, I was informing you what a complete argument would look like: foreign power, amount paid, and use of office, and pointing out that you aren't presenting a complete argument.

Your link failed. What about Khashoggi?


You never completed the argument. It would be nice if you could. It appears the justices dismissed cases about alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And since I don't think you've made a complete argument, you really do need to explain what you are arguing more carefully.


Well, they (some Republicans) are waving it around in people's faces (Comer, in particular) - that doesn't mean everyone believes them. Your a case in point. But the point I'm making in this thread is that they've make a complete argument: foreign power, payment, and use of office in return for that payment. They say a meeting that took place between Joe Biden and Burisma. They say financial transactions occurred to transfer the money from Burisma to Joe Biden (and others) - Joe Biden receiving $40000 for this particular service. And they say what Joe Biden did for Burisma (get Shokin fired). You may disagree with the pieces, but there's a complete argument start to finish. The reason I bring it up is because you continue to not make a complete argument and then expect me to just agree with your conclusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all you mean to argue is that Trump owns a large international business... then there's no disagreement about that, and I don't regard owning a large international business as being enough reason to not vote for Trump in 2024. Since this thread is supposed to be about why or why not Trump in 2024, perhaps you can give a reason that you would or would not vote for Trump in 2024.

What you won't do to defend Trump. The Emolument Clause is quite clear, and it's also clear he violated it numerous times.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's on you to make a complete argument... some people stayed at a hotel... wow.

That's a violation of the emoluments clause. It doesn't matter what you personally think about it. It's still a violation, regardless.

If you still don't get it, then that's on you.

Looks like it's on you.

It seems you've lost track of the thread (oops!) as I responded to:


with

in the context of you trying to say that Trump was beholden to foreign powers.

Every President releases their tax returns. So your claim that, "No, I haven't, because the requests for him to release his tax returns were so evidently politically motivated and because he gave clear reasons why he didn't release them: the advice of lawyers and the ongoing audit."

No, a President releasing his tax returns is the norm. So asking for a President to do so is just the normal course of things in a Presidential campaign.

What do you mean "he claimed"? It was the Bloomberg Billionaires Index that claimed that Trump lost $700 billion during his Presidency - not Trump. What do you mean "he lied"?

By that you mean "foreign powers" came and stayed in his hotel in DC and.. (drumroll)... payed for their stay. *gasp*

Which is a violation of the emoluments clause in the Constitution.

So, let's just get this straight then. You're fine with the President of the United Sates violating the Constitution?

yes, that's right folks, people stayed in a hotel, and you are here claiming Trump is "financially beholden" to them.

Trump was supposed to divest himself of his businesses, like all Presidents do. He didn't. Instead, he continued to make money through his businesses, taking money, DIRECTLY FROM FOREIGN POWERS. You don't seem to think that's problematic unless you think Biden is doing it, I guess.

Okay, another claim that Trump lies...(oldest accusation: politicians lie)

The man is a pathological liar.

When Trump became President, his businesses were placed in a trust run by two trustees: Donald Trump Jr. and the executive of the Trump Organization. You'll have to expound upon what you mean what you say he lied (again), when we know that his businessess were in a trust while he was President.

BS. As already demonstrated.

As far as I can tell, it appears that your link does not say "All the other presidents" divested their business interests upon becoming President and reading your link it would appear that the contrary is the case. Checking the politifact link:

But this is beside the point that I made about the fact "all the other" recent Presidents (at least since Ronald Reagan) have made millions of dollars from their Presidencies.

This is a completely different thing.

You've made your denial of that evidence clear. However, I was informing you what a complete argument would look like: foreign power, amount paid, and use of office, and pointing out that you aren't presenting a complete argument.

Your link failed. What about Khashoggi?

"PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENLY bragged about protecting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from scrutiny after the royal was accused of orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of a Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Trump told Woodward in January that he “saved” the prince’s “***,” justifying his efforts by noting that the Saudis bought arms from the United States, and explaining the country has oil and “religious monuments” that bestow “real power.”

Asked repeatedly if he believed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Trump answered “He says he didn’t do it.” The CIA has concluded Salman did order the murder. Intelligence reports indicate that 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul in October 2018, where they murdered Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate, sawed his body into pieces, and removed it in several plastic trash bags.

Acting on that assessment, members of both parties advanced measures to hold bin Salman accountable, including a resolution labeling him complicit in Khashoggi’s murder. The Senate unanimously voted to approve that measure in December of 2018, and every member of the House — save for seven Republicans — voted for the resolution as well.

But Trump and members of his administration have openly and consistently expressed doubt about bin Salman’s involvement, contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said there was no “direct reporting” of MBS’s guilt, while former Secretary of Defense James Mattis maintained there was no “smoking gun.”

Trump’s refusal to hold bin Salman accountable has had major consequences for the region. A majority of lawmakers have voted to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s military efforts in Yemen — a war that has perpetuated a horrific humanitarian crisis in the region. In 2019, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate passed legislation to block or limit U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. The votes came after the Trump administration used an emergency declaration to ink a deal that would sell $8.1 billion in armaments to the three countries without Congress’ approval."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...woodward-khashoggi-murder-saving-***-1057940/

You never completed the argument. It would be nice if you could. It appears the justices dismissed cases about alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And since I don't think you've made a complete argument, you really do need to explain what you are arguing more carefully.

Here's my argument: Imagine Joe Biden did this.
Now what do you think?

Well, they (some Republicans) are waving it around in people's faces (Comer, in particular)

Comer has zero evidence. He didn't even bother to show up at the "whistleblower" hearing in which said "whistleblower" stated that Joe Biden didn't do anything corrupt. LOL

- that doesn't mean everyone believes them

Nor should they since they haven't presented any actual evidence of corruption as of yet. Hence the reason they had to start the fishing expedition they call an "impeachment inquiry."

Your a case in point. But the point I'm making in this thread is that they've make a complete argument: foreign power, payment, and use of office in return for that payment. They say a meeting that took place between Joe Biden and Burisma. They say financial transactions occurred to transfer the money from Burisma to Joe Biden (and others) - Joe Biden receiving $40000 for this particular service. And they say what Joe Biden did for Burisma (get Shokin fired). You may disagree with the pieces, but there's a complete argument start to finish. The reason I bring it up is because you continue to not make a complete argument and then expect me to just agree with your conclusion.

They say, they say, they say ... but can't prove any of it. Sounds to me like they're just saying things. There's no complete argument there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all you mean to argue is that Trump owns a large international business... then there's no disagreement about that, and I don't regard owning a large international business as being enough reason to not vote for Trump in 2024.

Is that seriously what you think my argument is here?

Since this thread is supposed to be about why or why not Trump in 2024, perhaps you can give a reason that you would or would not vote for Trump in 2024.

I wouldn't ever vote for Trump because he's a rapist. Because he's a sociopath with zero compassion or empathy. Because he doesn't respect the laws of the land. He doesn't respect the Constitution. He doesn't respect democracy and tried to overturn an election. He doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic. Because instead of discussing issues and policies and engaging in political debate, he just makes up third-grade nicknames for his opponents and spews them all day long. Because he's a cheat and a con man. Because he's a wannabe fascist who admires and praises and falls in love with global dictators while denigrating and insulting democratically elected leaders. Because he is a phony from top to bottom, starting with his hair and makeup and ending with his supposed business acumen.

How any human being can support such a person is beyond my understanding.

 

[Ponder This]

"PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENLY bragged about protecting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from scrutiny after the royal was accused of orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of a Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Trump told Woodward in January that he “saved” the prince’s “***,” justifying his efforts by noting that the Saudis bought arms from the United States, and explaining the country has oil and “religious monuments” that bestow “real power.”

Asked repeatedly if he believed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Trump answered “He says he didn’t do it.” The CIA has concluded Salman did order the murder. Intelligence reports indicate that 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul in October 2018, where they murdered Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate, sawed his body into pieces, and removed it in several plastic trash bags.

Acting on that assessment, members of both parties advanced measures to hold bin Salman accountable, including a resolution labeling him complicit in Khashoggi’s murder. The Senate unanimously voted to approve that measure in December of 2018, and every member of the House — save for seven Republicans — voted for the resolution as well.

But Trump and members of his administration have openly and consistently expressed doubt about bin Salman’s involvement, contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said there was no “direct reporting” of MBS’s guilt, while former Secretary of Defense James Mattis maintained there was no “smoking gun.”

Trump’s refusal to hold bin Salman accountable has had major consequences for the region. A majority of lawmakers have voted to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s military efforts in Yemen — a war that has perpetuated a horrific humanitarian crisis in the region. In 2019, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate passed legislation to block or limit U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. The votes came after the Trump administration used an emergency declaration to ink a deal that would sell $8.1 billion in armaments to the three countries without Congress’ approval."

Okay. I'm unclear what you are trying to argue by quoting an article where Trump's advisors (Mike Pompeo and James Mattis) both said there wasn't sufficient evidence to accuse the Crown Prince. Sure, the CIA suspected the Crown Prince was involved, but the CIA didn't have evidence that proved it and the CIA wasn't particularly credible either, sad to say. So... what? Trump saved the Crown Prince's *** by not succumbing to accusations insufficient to prove his involvement? And would it upset you to learn that although the Crown Prince denied giving the order and claimed that it was a rogue operation, the Crown Prince has, nonetheless, taken responsibility for it by giving Khashoggi's children financial compensation for the death of their father?

The children of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi have received million-dollar houses in the kingdom and monthly five-figure payments as compensation for the killing of their father, according to current and former Saudi officials as well as people close to the family.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...79ca3e-5485-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
Khashoggi’s two sons and two daughters may also receive much larger payouts — possibly tens of millions of dollars apiece — as part of “blood money” negotiations that are expected to ensue when the trials of Khashoggi’s accused killers are completed in the coming months, according to the officials and others who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive talks.

Here's my argument: Imagine Joe Biden did this.
Now what do you think?

Your argument is that I should imagine Joe Biden owned a hotel in Washington D.C. and that people booked rooms and stayed there? That's your argument? I don't think anything of that. Of course, if Joe Biden received money that couldn't be explained by legtimate business, it would be a different story, wouldn't it?

Is that seriously what you think my argument is here?

I've been patiently trying to figure out your argument and what the evidence you provided actually amounts to. Newsflash: not much.

I wouldn't ever vote for Trump because he's a rapist.

I assume this is referring to the E. Jean Carroll accusation, where she claimed to have worn an outfit at a time when the outfit didn't exist yet, where she can't remember the year it happened, where she can't remember if it was winter or summer or fall or spring in New York City, where the architecture of the building doesn't allow the events she claims to have occurred the way she says they did, where the state legislature conveniently just so happens to pass a law that retroactively allows her to sue Trump, and where a court verdict requires Trump to pay an exorbitant amount of money for saying he didn't do it. But, I agree that if someone is a rapist, that's a good reason to consider not voting for someone.

Because he's a sociopath with zero compassion or empathy.

I don't know what you are referring to here. I hope you have a reason for that belief and haven't been assigned this opinion by the media you consume.

Because he doesn't respect the laws of the land. He doesn't respect the Constitution. He doesn't respect democracy and tried to overturn an election.

Is it disrespect of the laws, the Constitution, or democracy to question election results when you believe the election was manipulated? I don't think so.

He doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic.

You must be delusional.

Because instead of discussing issues and policies and engaging in political debate, he just makes up third-grade nicknames for his opponents and spews them all day long.

Have you listened to any of his speeches? He talks about issues and policies. As for not engaging in debate, he did a lot already in the last two elections. I like more debate, but, in this case, it hardly seems like a good reason to not vote for him. I can understand you not liking "third-grade nicknames" for opponents, but that's a petty reason to not vote for him.

Because he's a cheat and a con man. Because he's a wannabe fascist who admires and praises and falls in love with global dictators while denigrating and insulting democratically elected leaders. Because he is a phony from top to bottom, starting with his hair and makeup and ending with his supposed business acumen.

I can't object to character as being a good reason to vote or not vote for someone even though I may disagree with your assessment.
What's funny here is that you don't seem to want the President to be able to handle diplomacy with foreign leaders or even to bother to make himself presentable to others. Do you have a case of Orange-Man-Bad? Is he supposed to not comb his hair? Do you prefer a lack of hygiene in a President?

How any human being can support such a person is beyond my understanding.

Here's a thought: perhaps the man you described does not accurately represent who Trump is, because the man you described didn't sound like someone anyone would want to support. I mean... if there were a plagarizing career politician, who had trouble walking, speaking, or getting out of bed, and was getting the U.S. involved in more wars and escalation in the Middle East towards World War III, one would suppose that people would maybe not vote for that guy again... don't you think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay. I'm unclear what you are trying to argue by quoting an article where Trump's advisors (Mike Pompeo and James Mattis) both said there wasn't sufficient evidence to accuse the Crown Prince. Sure, the CIA suspected the Crown Prince was involved, but the CIA didn't have evidence that proved it and the CIA wasn't particularly credible either, sad to say. So... what? Trump saved the Crown Prince's *** by not succumbing to accusations insufficient to prove his involvement?

We all know the dude had it done. Trump just let him get away with it. Or, "saved his ***" as Trump described it.

And would it upset you to learn that although the Crown Prince denied giving the order and claimed that it was a rogue operation, the Crown Prince has, nonetheless, taken responsibility for it by giving Khashoggi's children financial compensation for the death of their father?

Oh! I'm sure that makes up for murdering and dismembering him just for writing unfavorable stories about them. Why didn't you say so before!

Your argument is that I should imagine Joe Biden owned a hotel in Washington D.C. and that people booked rooms and stayed there? That's your argument? I don't think anything of that. Of course, if Joe Biden received money that couldn't be explained by legtimate business, it would be a different story, wouldn't it?

Imagine how you would feel about that. I mean, you're here accusing Biden of taking money from foreign powers based on zero evidence while completely ignoring the millions of dollars that Trump himself demonstrably took from foreign powers.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and double standard.

I've been patiently trying to figure out your argument and what the evidence you provided actually amounts to. Newsflash: not much.

I'm not surprised by your response. You don't seem to be at all interested in an honest examination of the evidence.

I assume this is referring to the E. Jean Carroll accusation, where she claimed to have worn an outfit at a time when the outfit didn't exist yet, where she can't remember the year it happened, where she can't remember if it was winter or summer or fall or spring in New York City, where the architecture of the building doesn't allow the events she claims to have occurred the way she says they did, where the state legislature conveniently just so happens to pass a law that retroactively allows her to sue Trump, and where a court verdict requires Trump to pay an exorbitant amount of money for saying he didn't do it. But, I agree that if someone is a rapist, that's a good reason to consider not voting for someone.

It's far beyond a mere accusation now. He's been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

This has been adjudicated already. Your musings here are meaningless and unsubstantiated. Though I'm not that surprised you refuse to face facts on this one either.

I don't know what you are referring to here. I hope you have a reason for that belief and haven't been assigned this opinion by the media you consume.

I'm referring to his personality, behaviours and actions. They are those of a sociopath that does not experience empathy.
You haven't noticed yet that he only cares about himself?

Is it disrespect of the laws, the Constitution, or democracy to question election results when you believe the election was manipulated? I don't think so.

How about trying to overturn a democratic election because you don't want to give up power? You missed that one.

You must be delusional.

That would be you if you don't see it. Giuliani followed Trump right down the sinking ship and guess where he is now? Bankrupt. Trump refusing to help pay his legal bills.
Remember Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen? He lied for Trump. He went to prison for Trump. Did Trump help him at all? Nope. Threw him right under the bus. Calls him names to this day.
Remember dear old Jeff Sessions? He licked Trump's boots every which way from Sunday. Advocated for him. Supported him. Voted on everything Trump wanted. What did Trump do? Fired him on Twitter one day because he didn't do an unethical thing Trump wanted him to do.

Trump constantly throws everyone around him under the bus. He gives loyalty to no one. But expects it in return. If you can't see that I'd have to say you're the delusional one here.

Have you listened to any of his speeches? He talks about issues and policies.

Unfortunately for me, I've listened to a ton of his speeches.
They are mostly gibberish. Don't believe me? Pull up the transcript of any one of them and just try reading through it.
You'll quickly realize it's gibberish.
He never gets into policy, or details or anything at all.

As for not engaging in debate, he did a lot already in the last two elections.

Wow, someone give him a cookie for doing what he's supposed to do.

We're in a new election now. Why is Trump so afraid to debate his opponents, I wonder.

I like more debate, but, in this case, it hardly seems like a good reason to not vote for him. I can understand you not liking "third-grade nicknames" for opponents, but that's a petty reason to not vote for him.

His personality is a good reason not to vote for him.

I can't object to character as being a good reason to vote or not vote for someone even though I may disagree with your assessment.
What's funny here is that you don't seem to want the President to be able to handle diplomacy with foreign leaders or even to bother to make himself presentable to others. Do you have a case of Orange-Man-Bad? Is he supposed to not comb his hair? Do you prefer a lack of hygiene in a President?

That's not what I said though, was it.

"Because he's a wannabe fascist who admires and praises and falls in love with global dictators while denigrating and insulting democratically elected leaders."

Here's a thought: perhaps the man you described does not accurately represent who Trump is, because the man you described didn't sound like someone anyone would want to support.

Yes! So why do you people support him??????

I mean... if there were a plagarizing career politician, who had trouble walking, speaking, or getting out of bed, and was getting the U.S. involved in more wars and escalation in the Middle East towards World War III, one would suppose that people would maybe not vote for that guy again... don't you think?

Trump is all of those things and worse.