Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

Thread: Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,367
    Amen (Given)
    148
    Amen (Received)
    633
    It would be helpful, before chastising on this topic, to have a fuller exposure to and understanding of Trump's statements. He has consistently painted himself as a victim of Democrats and media regarding the use of his properties, especially the use of Trump International in DC and other properties by foreign diplomats and governments.

    It's fine not keeping up with everything Trump does and says (it's exhausting, who would want to?) but his rhetoric yesterday about the Emoluments Clause is exactly in line with his "defense" of profiting off his properties (and, yeah, exposure is profiting, too) in the past. And this doesn't even touch the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent by Trump's golf outings to his private resorts.

    In short: when the President starts whining about the "phony Emoluments Clause", probably best to not side with the President unless you're sure he's got an airtight case.

    --Sam

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    What's the definition of 'rage'?

    You hand-waved away that piece of anti-Trump media spin, and now you're drooling over another piece of media hype with no actual substance.



    1) The clips of Trump speaking lack the complete context - we don't hear the questions he was (apparently) answering. We don't know what was said in that lead to the start of the clip, and there's another section - right before the money quote - also missing.

    2) The headline is "Trump claims he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause". Trump doesn't appear to say that he is a victim at all. So that's media spin at best and an outright lie at worst.

    3) What he does say is:

    (a) describe the benefits of using the facility (amenities, close to airport, benefits to local economy etc). Whether these points are true or not is irrelevant to the 'phony emoluments' question.

    (b) Say that "the Democrats went crazy. Even though I would have done it free, saved the country a lot of money." Hence he is not seeking to profit from the resort hosting the summit (actually he would be out of pocket, he would be giving free the use of his commercial property for a government activity).

    (c) argue that the (Democrats?) claim that he'll get promotion (i.e. publicity) is irrelevant since he already gets a lot of promotion (the most in the world)

    (d) the video cuts out a part (about 0:54) and resumes with Trump saying:

    "I don't think you people {gesturing to his interviewers} with this phony emoluments clause - {change of topic} and by the way I would say that it's cost me from 2 to 5 billion dollars to be President, and that's OK, between what I lose and what I could have made. I could have made a fortune if I just ran my business, I was doing it really well {partially unclear}, I have a great business..."


    Conclusion

    (1) Trump clearly says that he would have given the use of the resort for free (see (b) above) BEFORE any mention of the emoluments clause.


    (2) The emolument clause was introduced into the interview by someone else (the journalists presumably). That (crucial) part is not on the clip, oddly.
    It's clear from the clip that Trump is responding to something someone else said - someone else brought up the emoluments clause as an issue, and he's saying that it's a non-issue.
    The money cite of Trump is a quote-mine. We don't know the preceding context, and he immediately changes to another topic.


    (3) Trump dismisses their raising it as a concern (since he has already said that he would not receive any benefit from the summit)


    (4) Nowhere does he 'claim to be a victim'. That is a lie, AFAICT. It's an attempt to make it look like Trump rides roughshod over the law, when in fact, he doesn't at all.


    (5) Nowhere does he say, or imply that he doesn't care about the emoluments clause. His argument seems to be that it doesn't apply (since he would not have been receiving anything). Note that he has decided that the summit will not be at his resort, so he cannot be breaking the clause (in this instance at least).






    Jim, this is another example of you getting sucked in by a clickbait headline when the actual content doesn't support the anti-Trump narrative in the story. Notably, the headline is untrue (no claim of being a victim); and the crucial quote is lacking context both before and after, thus a quotemine.
    "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?" ó Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  2. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,367
    Amen (Given)
    148
    Amen (Received)
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries.
    Seems pretty cynical and disqualifies the person making the argument from ethical discussions.
    "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?" ó Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  3. #23
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,629
    Amen (Given)
    1513
    Amen (Received)
    3234
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Never once referred to Trump as an 'anti-Christ'. You made that up all on your own.
    You donít have to say it to make it obvious what you believe. You believe Trump is the worst person to ever exist and anyone that dares to disagree with you is either too stupid to see what you see or too evil to care. Sounds like youíre describing the Antichrist to me. Rather you admit it or not.

    Your lack of moral compass when it comes to all things Trump is an observation based on your words. It is not meant to be an attack pix. I would hope it would cause you to reconsider many of your positions on this matter.
    And yet, Iím critical of many things he does or says and have expressed that opinion, several times over, in several post and responses to you (and even in this very thread). Yet, you ignore that and bear false witness against me because I donít accept your opinion that Trump is the most evil person that has ever existed. This is why Trump won in 2016 and why he may win in 2020 too. Itís your way or the highway, you must believe Trump is the most evil person, that has ever existed or youíre too stupid to understand or too evil to care. Like I said, youíre the Jorge of Civics.

    Wrong, but it takes a very black/white borderlinish mindset to get that out of my comments.
    No it isnít. Youíre just too blinded by rage and anger to see you becoming what you fear. A closed minded fool incapable of thinking in terms other than black/white. If thatís wrong, show me a single example of you not calling anyone that dares to disagree with you about Trump, not dumb or saying their immoral/evil. You canít, can you? Itís Jimís way or the highway, no other way.


    Actually pix, I've invited you many times to steer clear of the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' that make up most of your posts to me. Once you actually did it and we has a somewhat civil conversation. But for some reason you reverted almost immediately. But no, it is not 'my way or the highway'. However, when something involves clearly immoral behavior, it is hard to argue against the side that says 'hey, that is immoral behavior' unless you can show either the behavior didn't actually happen, or that the perception of what happened is somehow skewed. That is harder that just writing a paragraph if negative adjectives, yes, and perhaps less satisfying emotionally, but it is the only legitimate sort of response to make, and the only kind that has any chance of actually accomplishing something in the arena of ideas and opinions.
    One canít stay away from the obvious, youíre biased and itís as plain as the nose on your face. Think thatís wrong, show me a single case showing otherwise. Bet you canít.

    There you could potentially have a point. What you need to do first though is separate out the legitimate sources of income from the illegitimate ones. When we are talking about emoluments, we are talking about income that carries with it the potential of a bribe and/or obligation. If Donald Trump owned an auto factory, then there would be no issue with him getting a percentage of the profits as a president. But if he started involving that auto factory in contracts with middle eastern countries for armored cars, then he'd be crossing the line.
    Was Trump the owner an international business before he was president? Yes or no? Is the Trump corporation suppose to suspend all international hotels and developments just because Trump became president? Sorry, but this is America and not the USSR, you made the charge and itís your job to prove your assertion, not mine to disprove it. Innocent till proven guilty, maybe youíve heard of that concept before? A soundbite, click bate article, and assertion isnít evidence of a crime. What happened to you? You used to source your stuff and back it up before you went all Jorge around here.

    So you argument can't be that 'they got rich after being president', or even 'while being president' (though that is more problematic). You would need to show that former presidents violated the emoluments clause in some analogous fashion to how Trump has. And there I think you are going to have a problem - but I could be wrong, and feel free to try to make that case. You'll find my responses will take on a very different character if you move away from the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' to more substantive fare, just like they did the last time you attempted to take that route.
    You havenít offered up any evidence to back your claim. Max did a great job of showing your article as clickbait nonsense. Do your work instead of making assertions and expecting others to debunk your bald assertions.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019 at 09:43 AM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  4. #24
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,458
    Amen (Given)
    1076
    Amen (Received)
    1627
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    It would be helpful, before chastising on this topic, to have a fuller exposure to and understanding of Trump's statements. He has consistently painted himself as a victim of Democrats and media regarding the use of his properties, especially the use of Trump International in DC and other properties by foreign diplomats and governments.

    It's fine not keeping up with everything Trump does and says (it's exhausting, who would want to?) but his rhetoric yesterday about the Emoluments Clause is exactly in line with his "defense" of profiting off his properties (and, yeah, exposure is profiting, too) in the past. And this doesn't even touch the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent by Trump's golf outings to his private resorts.

    In short: when the President starts whining about the "phony Emoluments Clause", probably best to not side with the President unless you're sure he's got an airtight case.

    --Sam
    Stop with the assumed moral superiority, Sam. It's unconvincing when you hand-wave away the data. Deal with the story that it the topic.


    Is the story that oxmixmudd posted accurate and supported by the facts in the article and video clip, or not? Do you defend a news piece that misrepresents the President, or not?

    I think I have shown that it is not at all accurate.

    If you want people to agree with your assessment of Trump, then you need to use sources which are fair, truthful, and accurate, and reject ones which are not. Is that story accurate, or not?
    Last edited by MaxVel; 10-22-2019 at 09:48 AM.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  5. Amen Mountain Man amen'd this post.
  6. #25
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,629
    Amen (Given)
    1513
    Amen (Received)
    3234
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Seems pretty cynical and disqualifies the person making the argument from ethical discussions.
    Democrats could care less about bribery, unless they can use it against a Republican.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  7. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,060
    Amen (Given)
    343
    Amen (Received)
    1655
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    You donít have to say it to make it obvious what you believe. You believe Trump is the worst person to ever exist and anyone that dares to disagree with you is either too stupid to see what you see or too evil to care. Sounds like youíre describing the Antichrist to me. Rather you admit it or not.
    Well that is pretty much off in loopy land.


    And yet, Iím critical of many things he does or says and have expressed that opinion, several times over, in several post and responses to you (and even in this very thread). Yet, you ignore that and bear false witness against me because I donít accept your opinion that Trump is the most evil person that has ever existed. This is why Trump won in 2016 and why he may win in 2020 too. Itís your way or the highway, you must believe Trump is the most evil person, that has ever existed or youíre too stupid to understand or too evil to care. Like I said, youíre the Jorge of Civics.
    More negative adjective rants. Oh well.


    No it isnít. Youíre just too blinded by rage and anger to see you becoming what you fear. A closed minded fool incapable of thinking in terms other than black/white. If thatís wrong, show me a single example of you not calling anyone that dares to disagree with you about Trump, not dumb or saying their immoral/evil. You canít, can you? Itís Jimís way or the highway, no other way.
    My Rage ... ?

    One canít stay away from the obvious, youíre biased and itís as plain as the nose on your face. Think thatís wrong, show me a single case showing otherwise. Bet you canít.
    well certainly not given your own bias towards me


    Was Trump the owner an international business before he was president? Yes or no? Is the Trump corporation suppose to suspend all international hotels and developments just because Trump became president? Sorry, but this is America and not the USSR, you made the charge and itís your job to prove your assertion, not mine to disprove it. Innocent till proven guilty, maybe youíve heard of that concept before? A soundbite, click bate article, and assertion isnít evidence of a crime. What happened to you? You used to source your stuff and back it up before you went all Jorge around here.
    Sam explained it well. And to a certain extent, that is the cost to someone like Trump of taking on the presidency. He needs to find ways to ensure that while he is president his office and his businesses do not become intertwined, and especially that even the appearance of a conflict of interest be eliminated. If he wasn't willing to do that, he should have never run for office.



    You havenít offered up any evidence to back your claim. Max did a great job of showing your article as clickbait nonsense. Do your work instead of making assertions and expecting others to debunk your bald assertions.
    Maybe not as great as you presume.

    Jim
    He will reply, ĎTruly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  8. #27
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,629
    Amen (Given)
    1513
    Amen (Received)
    3234
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Well that is pretty much off in loopy land.
    Your gaslighting is noted. If I am wrong, name a single evil thing you think Trump is incapable of doing.

    More negative adjective rants. Oh well.
    More gaslighting. Stop bearing false witness Jim, but you wonít because itís only your opponents that are terrible sinners, not the holy and righteous Jim!

    My Rage ... ?
    Name a conspiracy theory, about Trump, you donít believe is true. I can name several about Clinton and Obama I think are false.

    well certainly not given your own bias towards me
    Give me a reason to think youíre objective. Can you?

    Sam explained it well. And to a certain extent, that is the cost to someone like Trump of taking on the presidency. He needs to find ways to ensure that while he is president his office and his businesses do not become intertwined, and especially that even the appearance of a conflict of interest be eliminated. If he wasn't willing to do that, he should have never run for office.
    Thatís an assertion, not a fact. You nor Sam have been unable to show anything illegal happened. Which is the issue here, show it. Can you?

    Maybe not as great as you presume.
    The fact you nor Sam have addressed a word he said, speaks volumes.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  9. #28
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,367
    Amen (Given)
    148
    Amen (Received)
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Stop with the assumed moral superiority, Sam. It's unconvincing when you hand-wave away the data. Deal with the story that it the topic.


    Is the story that oxmixmudd posted accurate and supported by the facts in the article and video clip, or not? Do you defend a news piece that misrepresents the President, or not?

    I think I have shown that it is not at all accurate.

    If you want people to agree with your assessment of Trump, then you need to use sources which are fair, truthful, and accurate, and reject ones which are not. Is that story accurate, or not?

    Easy there, cowboy. I'm not assuming moral superiority here.

    Just information superiority.

    You're coming into the thread blaming Jim for not being accurate or objective describing Trump's attitude toward self-dealing and the Emoluments Clause, with your set of data based on one story and one clip. If you follow Trump's "pressers" and tweets with some frequency, however, it's more than obvious that his attitude toward emoluments matches his rhetoric here: he doesn't care about self-dealing, as he's handed his resorts (which he retains control over) hundreds of millions of dollars from his own use. He's also accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists, politicians, and foreign officials visiting his hotels, especially his hotel in DC that, according to the lease, he shouldn't even control. Trump is facing, to my knowledge, two lawsuits in federal court over the Emoluments Clause and has been routinely dismissive and contemptuous of people saying that he should divest of his assets like other presidents before him.

    You say the piece misrepresents Trump. But journalism doesn't exist in a vacuum and the piece does not misrepresent what Trump said or his general attitude toward the issue. So if you know the context, you know it's accurate. If you don't know the context ... well, I'd say this is a topic worth some study.

    --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?" ó Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  10. #29
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,316
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    398
    Every day, in every way, the lawless Trump shows how he has failed miserably to grow into his office.
    ďI think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.Ē ― Oscar Wilde
    ďYou can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.Ē ― Anne Lamott
    ďAnd if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existenceĒ ― Bertrand Russell

  11. #30
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,458
    Amen (Given)
    1076
    Amen (Received)
    1627
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Easy there, cowboy. I'm not assuming moral superiority here.

    Just information superiority.

    You're coming into the thread blaming Jim for not being accurate or objective describing Trump's attitude toward self-dealing and the Emoluments Clause, with your set of data based on one story and one clip. If you follow Trump's "pressers" and tweets with some frequency, however, it's more than obvious that his attitude toward emoluments matches his rhetoric here: he doesn't care about self-dealing, as he's handed his resorts (which he retains control over) hundreds of millions of dollars from his own use. He's also accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists, politicians, and foreign officials visiting his hotels, especially his hotel in DC that, according to the lease, he shouldn't even control. Trump is facing, to my knowledge, two lawsuits in federal court over the Emoluments Clause and has been routinely dismissive and contemptuous of people saying that he should divest of his assets like other presidents before him.

    You say the piece misrepresents Trump. But journalism doesn't exist in a vacuum and the piece does not misrepresent what Trump said or his general attitude toward the issue. So if you know the context, you know it's accurate. If you don't know the context ... well, I'd say this is a topic worth some study.

    --Sam

    I'm seeing a pattern here, Sam.* I make a simple point, and you dance here and there and everywhere trying to evade it, instead of just granting it, even though granting it wouldn't hurt your case, and actually would enhance your credibility.


    - Aren't we all biased in some way? Do any of us look at both sides of the American political 'battle' objectively? Perhaps we should be more aware of our own biases, and a little more charitable toward those we disagree with, and a little more skeptical of media pieces that suit our prejudices. Result - a long series of posts explaining how you aren't really that biased, and how I have to convince you that you are, and how I'm just being cynical towards politicians anyway (and you aren't then just being naive??). You could have just agreed that everyone has biases, and it pays to be aware of our own ones.


    - Did Trump really say what the article claims he did? I argue in detail, with actual quotes from the clip of the interview, that it doesn't fairly represent what he said in the interview. Result - some other, related allegations about Trump; claims that the article should be interpreted in a wider context (not provided) as typical of Trump's behaviour on this topic (i.e. even if the article gives a false impression of what Trump did say at that time, never mind because we know he's like that anyway). The citations you give are not examples of Trump's responses to allegations of violation of the emoluments clause (which would be somewhat relevant) but more allegations.

    Think about it: If someone posted a thread claiming that Sam thinks we should all eat only horsemeat to save the world from global warming, with an edited and out of context quote of you saying 'I love horses'; and I question that claim about you; and the poster responds with cites of other people claiming that is your typical response, how does that show that the initial claim is true? Adding in some cites of articles saying that 'horsemeat onlyists' are breaking the rules of good dietary and environmental science doesn't address the question.


    Would granting that the article oxmixmudd cited is a misrepresentation of Trump mean that he hasn't broken the emoluments clause? Of course not. I'm NOT arguing that he hasn't broken the clause (or that he has). My point has only, and always been, that the article is 'fake news'. How hard is it for you to grant that?

    Would granting that the article is a misrepresentation show that you're able and willing to evaluate data sources objectively, and treat Trump fairly? Yes. Why then is it so hard for you to do that?







    * I can do the 'I'm superior to you' tone thing too. It's unhelpful and unpersuasive. Are you trying to win people to your views, or just trying to beat them in arguments on TWeb?
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •