Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    MM - you're the one pretending nearly everything Trump does can be excused.
    No I'm not. All I'm doing is pointing out that the hysterical accusations and conspiracy theories coming from your camp simply don't hold water.

    It's like:

    "Trump eats babies for breakfast!"
    "That's absurd. Of course he doesn't."
    "Why do you pretend everything Trump does can be excused!"

    Yes, that's a (slight) exaggeration, but maybe if you reeled in the insanity just a bit, people might start taking you seriously again.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      No I'm not. All I'm doing is pointing out that the hysterical accusations and conspiracy theories coming from your camp simply don't hold water.

      It's like:

      "Trump eats babies for breakfast!"
      "That's absurd. Of course he doesn't."
      "Why do you pretend everything Trump does can be excused!"

      Yes, that's a (slight) exaggeration, but maybe if you reeled in the insanity just a bit, people might start taking you seriously again.
      I have reeled it in significantly MM. But I'm not going to pull so far back that I deny the truth. And based on what you and so many post, it appears that would be a requirement.

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I have reeled it in significantly MM. But I'm not going to pull so far back that I deny the truth. And based on what you and so many post, it appears that would be a requirement.

        Jim
        That's just it: much of what you insist about Trump isn't actually true, but your warped perspective concerning all things Trump doesn't allow you to see it.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          The problem you're having, on this thread and the past one, is that you're jumping into the conversation with apparently no knowledge of the current situation, much less the larger context of how Trump speaks and acts. You're operating without information parity but want people to agree with your opinion, despite its foundation in ignorance and the underlying assumption that we're pretty much dealing with the same sort of situation here as with presidents past.

          We are not.

          The context surrounding Trump's "phony Emoluments Clause" statement, for example, isn't that he was going to provide access to Doral "for free" (that was an ad hoc promise that the Trump administration floated after the outrage started from Republicans and the first trial balloon ("at cost") didn't land). Neither is the context that Trump was calling the concern about the Emoluments Clause phony: his surrounding statements were 1) how great Doral is, 2) claiming falsely that Obama negotiated a book deal while in office, 3) George Washington ran a business while president.

          Those taken together with the vast wealth of knowledge about Trump's foreign business dealings frame the context perfectly: Trump does not believe that he is bound in any way by the Emoluments Clause, giving it the same ignorant disregard he reportedly gives the entire framework. In a way, it's not his fault that aides have had to tell him he can't do illegal and unlawful things -- he's just a narcissistic, ignorant, incurious man whose brain has rotted out even further thanks to age, diet, and 24/7 cable news.

          But what's our excuse?


          Red herrings, Sam.

          I have all the information that you have, for the point I made, which was that the cited article misrepresented what Trump said in the provided video clip. Anything else Trump might have said anywhere else is irrelevant to the point made, which was solely about that article. You have done NOTHING to address the article itself, merely pointed at other accusations made against Trump. He could be 100% guilty of breaching the emoluments clause, waving away the emoluments clause, etc etc, and the article still be a misrepresentation. I don't really care either way whether he is guilty or not, but you simply are not able to be objective about anything negative about Trump. You're arguing that a falsehood about what Trump said is OK, because he's 'guilty anyway'.

          You're just dancing around the actual point I'm making, and not dealing with it. 'Information superiority' my foot.

          Next response should consist of you actually specifically addressing the article and it's contents. That would be honest, and fair. Can you do it?

          Does the article fairly represent what Trump said in the attached interview, or not? If you think it does, show why and where my argument (made with specific references to the actual interview and article) is wrong, by giving your own specific references to the interview. If you think it doesn't (like me), simply say something like 'It doesn't fairly reflect what was said in the interview clips.'. Doesn't mean Trump is a good President, or that he's not breaking the emoluments clause, just that that particular article is not a good one.

          Specifically, the headline: "Trump claims he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause", and the first sentence of the body of the article: "President Donald Trump on Monday claimed he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause,"..." are not supported by what he says in the video clip.

          Nowhere, to the best of my knowledge, does he use the word 'victim', or any related word in reference to himself, and nowhere does he say that he's being treated 'unfairly', or anything remotely resembling that idea. The key quote "phony emoluments clause" is immediately preceded by an gap in the interview, and in context is an incomplete thought, as he immediately changes topic. Also what he says, starting immediately after the gap in the video, is "I don't think you people {gesturing to his interviewers} with this phony emoluments clause - {incomplete sentence, and change of topic} and by the way I would say that it's cost me from 2 to 5 billion dollars to be President,..."

          That's a quote-mine right there. No preceding context given, only three words quoted, "Trump claims he's the victim" added in to preface the three word quote-mine, no reference made to the immediate change of topic and thus incomplete sentence (and thought). No attempt made by the interviewers (that we are given) to clarify what Trump meant, or to get a full context from him. A three word 'quote' from an incomplete sentence, given in response to a question or statement that we aren't given access to, framed with something he didn't say ('victim') or imply.






          Originally posted by Sam
          So if you jump in here asserting that one news story and one video clip be taken in without context and that your opinion of the matter be understood as the objective one, despite lack of surrounding knowledge, what can a person do except tell you "No, you gotta pay more attention to this?"*

          --Sam
          It would help if you responded to what I actually was arguing, not your imagined version of it. You're the one arguing without any reference to the relevant information: the article and the clip. My point is (and has been) that that article misrepresents what Trump said in that interview. I have not argued against (and am not ignorant of) the points you make about Trump's offer of Doral etc etc. They aren't relevant to my point.
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • #65
            If your point doesn't address the context of events in which the author is writing then you have no basis to argue that the author's editorial interpretations (e.g., Trump believing that he's not bound by the Emoluments Clause, Trump acting victimized by media & Democrats) is unwarranted.

            Can't demand a vacuum when it doesn't exist. Can't defend your position of Trump being mischaracterized when context is considered.

            --Sam


            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            Red herrings, Sam.

            I have all the information that you have, for the point I made, which was that the cited article misrepresented what Trump said in the provided video clip. Anything else Trump might have said anywhere else is irrelevant to the point made, which was solely about that article. You have done NOTHING to address the article itself, merely pointed at other accusations made against Trump. He could be 100% guilty of breaching the emoluments clause, waving away the emoluments clause, etc etc, and the article still be a misrepresentation. I don't really care either way whether he is guilty or not, but you simply are not able to be objective about anything negative about Trump. You're arguing that a falsehood about what Trump said is OK, because he's 'guilty anyway'.

            You're just dancing around the actual point I'm making, and not dealing with it. 'Information superiority' my foot.

            Next response should consist of you actually specifically addressing the article and it's contents. That would be honest, and fair. Can you do it?

            Does the article fairly represent what Trump said in the attached interview, or not? If you think it does, show why and where my argument (made with specific references to the actual interview and article) is wrong, by giving your own specific references to the interview. If you think it doesn't (like me), simply say something like 'It doesn't fairly reflect what was said in the interview clips.'. Doesn't mean Trump is a good President, or that he's not breaking the emoluments clause, just that that particular article is not a good one.

            Specifically, the headline: "Trump claims he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause", and the first sentence of the body of the article: "President Donald Trump on Monday claimed he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause,"..." are not supported by what he says in the video clip.

            Nowhere, to the best of my knowledge, does he use the word 'victim', or any related word in reference to himself, and nowhere does he say that he's being treated 'unfairly', or anything remotely resembling that idea. The key quote "phony emoluments clause" is immediately preceded by an gap in the interview, and in context is an incomplete thought, as he immediately changes topic. Also what he says, starting immediately after the gap in the video, is "I don't think you people {gesturing to his interviewers} with this phony emoluments clause - {incomplete sentence, and change of topic} and by the way I would say that it's cost me from 2 to 5 billion dollars to be President,..."

            That's a quote-mine right there. No preceding context given, only three words quoted, "Trump claims he's the victim" added in to preface the three word quote-mine, no reference made to the immediate change of topic and thus incomplete sentence (and thought). No attempt made by the interviewers (that we are given) to clarify what Trump meant, or to get a full context from him. A three word 'quote' from an incomplete sentence, given in response to a question or statement that we aren't given access to, framed with something he didn't say ('victim') or imply.








            It would help if you responded to what I actually was arguing, not your imagined version of it. You're the one arguing without any reference to the relevant information: the article and the clip. My point is (and has been) that that article misrepresents what Trump said in that interview. I have not argued against (and am not ignorant of) the points you make about Trump's offer of Doral etc etc. They aren't relevant to my point.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              If your point doesn't address the context of events in which the author is writing then you have no basis to argue that the author's editorial interpretations (e.g., Trump believing that he's not bound by the Emoluments Clause, Trump acting victimized by media & Democrats) is unwarranted.

              Can't demand a vacuum when it doesn't exist. Can't defend your position of Trump being mischaracterized when context is considered.

              --Sam

              Refusal to address points made noted. You've confirmed my impression of you, Sam.


              The immediate context the author is writing in is the interview in the clip. And more specifically, the original author is Trump - the interview clip - so where we have to start is 'What did he say, and what did he intend to convey by what he said?'). Problem you're persistently ignoring is that the original author's (Trump's) words do not support the claims made in the article. The wider context is everything else about this issue, including other political and media claims and accusations about Trump and the emoluments clause.

              You're arguing that we should interpret this defense by Trump, against accusations, one particular (negative) way, even though the actual words (immediate context, author intent) he said don't support that interpretation.

              The wider context only becomes relevant when we have established the original author's intent to the best of our ability. You're doing it backwards, bringing a context which includes accusations against Trump (true or not, we don't 100% know) and imposing that on to what he said, and using it to excuse misrepresentation of his actual statements. However many true accusations there might be out there doesn't make a misrepresentation true.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • #67
                I addressed your points previously, noting how the full context of Trump's statement at the time (not just what's present in the soundbite-clip) made it clear that he was arguing in favor of his ability to practice self-dealing with his private business, even when it comes to foreign governments.

                I don't recall where you addressed the points I made in that post.

                --Sam

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Refusal to address points made noted. You've confirmed my impression of you, Sam.


                The immediate context the author is writing in is the interview in the clip. And more specifically, the original author is Trump - the interview clip - so where we have to start is 'What did he say, and what did he intend to convey by what he said?'). Problem you're persistently ignoring is that the original author's (Trump's) words do not support the claims made in the article. The wider context is everything else about this issue, including other political and media claims and accusations about Trump and the emoluments clause.

                You're arguing that we should interpret this defense by Trump, against accusations, one particular (negative) way, even though the actual words (immediate context, author intent) he said don't support that interpretation.

                The wider context only becomes relevant when we have established the original author's intent to the best of our ability. You're doing it backwards, bringing a context which includes accusations against Trump (true or not, we don't 100% know) and imposing that on to what he said, and using it to excuse misrepresentation of his actual statements. However many true accusations there might be out there doesn't make a misrepresentation true.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  I addressed your points previously, noting how the full context of Trump's statement at the time (not just what's present in the soundbite-clip) made it clear that he was arguing in favor of his ability to practice self-dealing with his private business, even when it comes to foreign governments.

                  I don't recall where you addressed the points I made in that post.

                  --Sam

                  Nuh-uh. Your response has been 'if we look at what he says elsewhere (unspecified and uncited) we can see that this is typical of him' so, then presumably, it's not a misrepresentaion to say he 'claims to be a victim' (where?) when he says nothing of the kind in the interview, and that it's not a misrepresentation to say that he "claimed he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause" when he said nothing of the kind in that interview either.

                  Already pointed out to you that that what he is alleged to have said elsewhere is a red herring and irrelevant to my actual point.


                  AFAICT no response has been given to the specific points about the actual interview and the article itself, except to claim (unfairly and incorrectly) that a wider context justifies misrepresentation here. That's really sad.



                  Did Trump claim "...he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause'"? If so, where? Be specific.

                  Did Trump claim "...he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause,..."? If so, where? Be specific.

                  Both of those are direct quotes from the article, and they are both falsehoods about what he said in the recorded interview. Are you happy to accept lies made against Trump?


                  It's really not that hard, Sam.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Then you didn't pay attention because I pointed out in that same presser Trump was referencing Obama's book deal and George Washington to show that he was being treated unfairly by media and Democrats.

                    --Sam

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Nuh-uh. Your response has been 'if we look at what he says elsewhere (unspecified and uncited) we can see that this is typical of him' so, then presumably, it's not a misrepresentaion to say he 'claims to be a victim' (where?) when he says nothing of the kind in the interview, and that it's not a misrepresentation to say that he "claimed he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause" when he said nothing of the kind in that interview either.

                    Already pointed out to you that that what he is alleged to have said elsewhere is a red herring and irrelevant to my actual point.


                    AFAICT no response has been given to the specific points about the actual interview and the article itself, except to claim (unfairly and incorrectly) that a wider context justifies misrepresentation here. That's really sad.



                    Did Trump claim "...he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause'"? If so, where? Be specific.

                    Did Trump claim "...he's receiving unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause,..."? If so, where? Be specific.

                    Both of those are direct quotes from the article, and they are both falsehoods about what he said in the recorded interview. Are you happy to accept lies made against Trump?


                    It's really not that hard, Sam.
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      That's just it: much of what you insist about Trump isn't actually true, but your warped perspective concerning all things Trump doesn't allow you to see it.
                      surely you jest.

                      I predict that as this continues, your capacity to deny reality will reach heights never before seen on these pages ... except perhaps from John Martin.

                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        So just Fox and it only "has a limited amount of legitimacy."
                        Even if we make the dubious assumption that the relative placement of all of those media entities is accurate, Jim's self-cited locus places him almost as far left of zero as FNC is right of zero.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Then you didn't pay attention because I pointed out in that same presser Trump was referencing Obama's book deal and George Washington to show that he was being treated unfairly by media and Democrats.

                          --Sam
                          I did read that, but you gave no source, and didn't make it clear that it was the same interview.

                          None of which actually makes the article's misrepresentation true, since the accompanying material does not support the claims made about what Trump said. And that's the only thing that would make it not a misrepresentation - actual complete quotes from Trump saying what they claim he said.


                          You're now arguing that they didn't misrepresent Trump because he did say other things in his defense, it just happens that they didn't bother citing those things. Instead they cited things he said that didn't support their claims. Surely you can see how weak that defense of their misrepresentation is.




                          It's really been interesting to see the lengths you are prepared to go to rather than accept something negative about Trump is actually a misrepresentation and a quote mine, a piece of shoddy, hack journalism. Eliminating one obviously wrong data point doesn't destroy your whole case, actually it strengthens it.

                          Accepting that the article is rubbish says literally nothing about whether Trump is breaching the emoluments clause. He quite possibly is. I can accept that as a live possibility. I can't accept such biased junk 'journalism' as evidence for it, though. Apparently you can. Yet you're objective.

                          I'm done, I've reached the limit of my interest in this issue, and you still haven't made any reference to the actual article itself, and the accompanying video. Thanks for making where you're coming from really clear.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            surely you jest.

                            I predict that as this continues, your capacity to deny reality will reach heights never before seen on these pages ... except perhaps from John Martin.

                            Jim
                            If evidence is found that Trump committed an impeachable offense then let him be indicted, convicted, and removed from office. I don't have a problem with that. Nobody is (or should be) above the law.

                            But the reality is that there is no evidence to date that Trump has committed any such offense. I don't have a problem with that, either, but you clearly do which causes you to add biased speculation to the facts and then mistake it for the truth. For instance, Trump suggested in a phonecall to President Zelinsky that he should take a closer look at Biden's potential criminal conduct as Vice President: fact. Trump did so with illicit motives: unfounded speculation, yet your bias compels you to lump this in with the facts.

                            Frankly, I don't think you even realize you're doing it.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            162 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            400 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            379 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X