• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Hotel in Washington Saw Strong Profit in First Four Months of 2017

PeteEU said:
Come on, stop being so freaking naive. The expectation of any government renting into Trump properties, is that they will gain favour with the commander in chief. Since there is money being exchanged, and A LOT of it, then that is de facto bribery.
Click to expand...

So no names then. That's what I thought.
 
PeteEU said:
Eh? What does the Clintons have to do with this? You right wingers really have a hardon for the Clintons.. it aint healthy..
Click to expand...

The Clintons are brought up to exposes leftist hypocrisy. Which explains why you leftists hate when we bring up the Clintons.
 
Fletch said:
So no names then. That's what I thought.
Click to expand...

I already said Kuwait. And there is plenty of reporting about the situation at the hotel.. google it. Oh yea, forgot, if it does not come from Trumpland News, then it is fake news.. pathetic attitude.
 
Fletch said:
The Clintons are brought up to exposes leftist hypocrisy. Which explains why you leftists hate when we bring up the Clintons.
Click to expand...

The so called corruption of the Clintons is mostly a right wing conspiracy theory that they cant prove one bit. This Trump corruption is clear and in your face. When Kuwait moves their party to one of his most expensive hotels just after he wins the election and that reports show that diplomats are specifically choosing to stay at the hotel over others...come on, anyone can see what is going on there.
 
PeteEU said:
I already said Kuwait. And there is plenty of reporting about the situation at the hotel.. google it. Oh yea, forgot, if it does not come from Trumpland News, then it is fake news.. pathetic attitude.
Click to expand...

Kuwait stays at Trump hotel? The whole country? Your flailing only proves your charges have no substance.
 
PeteEU said:
Eh? What does the Clintons have to do with this? You right wingers really have a hardon for the Clintons.. it aint healthy..
Click to expand...
They're just a good anchor point for comparison purposes. Now, what do you think I should get Trump to do for my $600? I wonder how long we'll get to talk?
 
PeteEU said:
The so called corruption of the Clintons is mostly a right wing conspiracy theory that they cant prove one bit. This Trump corruption is clear and in your face. When Kuwait moves their party to one of his most expensive hotels just after he wins the election and that reports show that diplomats are specifically choosing to stay at the hotel over others...come on, anyone can see what is going on there.
Click to expand...

Please, what is going on? And your bit about the Clintons is hilarious. Foreign actors would never donate to the foundation of a sitting SoS running for president in an attempt gain influence. Lol. Ah, but someone booked a room at Trump hotel and its bribery. Hackery at its finest.
 
joG said:
Russia, at least, doesn't seem to have gotten much bang for their buck, have they. ;)
Click to expand...

Mainly due to congress not the president.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I honestly don't think a blind trust would work given the nature of Trump's businesses.
Click to expand...

True. He should have been forced to divest himself of his business OR divest himself of his Presidency (assuming he actually has a presidency)...

To prevent a POTUS profiting from their position, our founders placed an emoluments provision in the Constitution. We also have federal corruption laws. Action should be brought on Trump under these provisions to force his divestiture now.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
True. He should have been forced to divest himself of his business OR divest himself of his Presidency (assuming he actually has a presidency)...

To prevent a POTUS profiting from their position, our founders placed an emoluments provision in the Constitution. We also have federal corruption laws. Action should be brought on Trump under these provisions to force his divestiture now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the Emoluments Clause to understand what it really says. It is not as sweeping as you suggest.
 
MTAtech said:
It's even worse than that, worse than that. The lease clearly states that no u.s. govt officials or employees can be the leasee. Since foreign governments are renting space it's a clear violation of the emoluments clause, that is supposed to prevent officials from influence from foreign countries.
Fletch said:
Just curious, did you have the same concerns with regards to the Clinton Foundation? Or did you have zero intellectual curiosity simply because they were democrats?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What specific concerns are you referring to regarding the Clinton Foundation?

I couldn't have a more spectacularly illustration of the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, than the bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating -- that's better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or themselves -- just like Trump did with his foundation. Alternatively, Mrs. Clinton could have used her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation "raises questions."

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, "no."

Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate "her possible ethics challenges if elected president." Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf. But the prime example The AP actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

So, I ask again what specific concerns are you referring to?

But I do note the whataboutism, as in “What about Clinton?” rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions.

On the note of whataboutism, I could only imagine the kittens that conservatives on this forum would be having if President Obama owned a luxury Washington hotel and foreign dignitaries were frequent guests.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
Perhaps you can show us a law that bars the president from owning business assets. I see no reason why he should have to give up his wealth to serve as president. Perhaps you think a poor person would make a better president. If so then you need to find one for which you wish to vote.
Click to expand...

Ethics Reform Act of 1989

It bars senior non career officers of government from permitting the use of their name by any firm that provides services involving a fiduciary relationship. Such as a law firm, or real estate holding company, or say licensing your name to hotels, golf courses, etc.

And then there is the Emoluments clause of the constitution. Which isn't necessarily a problem, except for that whole offering visas to investors. And a few other sketchy moves his kids have done. Which would violate that clause in the strictest definition.
 
PeteEU said:
Eh? What does the Clintons have to do with this? You right wingers really have a hardon for the Clintons.. it aint healthy..
Click to expand...

No no no pete....
Let us cease and desist from hypocricy, shall we? We all know the Clinton Foundation was set up so wealthy foreigners and countries could buy influence with the Clintons. Trump properties predate his political career.
Whatever corruption you believe exists with Trump, its small potatoes with what the Clintons offered.
 
MTAtech said:
What specific concerns are you referring to regarding the Clinton Foundation?

I couldn't have a more spectacularly illustration of the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, than the bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating -- that's better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or themselves -- just like Trump did with his foundation. Alternatively, Mrs. Clinton could have used her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation "raises questions."

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, "no."

Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate "her possible ethics challenges if elected president." Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf. But the prime example The AP actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

So, I ask again what specific concerns are you referring to?

But I do note the whataboutism, as in “What about Clinton?” rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions.

On the note of whataboutism, I could only imagine the kittens that conservatives on this forum would be having if President Obama owned a luxury Washington hotel and foreign dignitaries were frequent guests.
Click to expand...

And as soon as mrs. Clinton loses the election, they close up shop.
Why do you suppose that is? Poverty got wiped out?
 
upsideguy said:
True. He should have been forced to divest himself of his business OR divest himself of his Presidency (assuming he actually has a presidency)...

To prevent a POTUS profiting from their position, our founders placed an emoluments provision in the Constitution. We also have federal corruption laws. Action should be brought on Trump under these provisions to force his divestiture now.
Click to expand...

Obama became s millionaire on royalties from his autobiographies.
Only Americans bought them?
 
It's time to get over the Clinton's and hold 45 and his crew accountable. She's not POTUS. Continually countering with HRC is not a defense of 45. It's an excuse.

The buck stops with 45.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...first-four-months-of-2017-1502424589?mod=e2tw

So instead of divesting himself the proper way, he ups the prices and uses his position to profit. He should have sold his businesses off or at the very least put them in a blind trust. Merely "stepping back" from management and leaving it in the hands of his children is not divesting anything.

So let's hear it, what makes Trump so special that he gets away with something like this? Why are we not holding him to the same standards we've held every other wealthy President?

And save the Hillary bull****, nobody gives two ****s about Hillary. We all know what some of you are about to reply with, let me preemptively say nobody cares about Hillary. Whatever bull**** she's done doesn't make it ok for Trump to get away with anything and everything under the sun.
Click to expand...

You don't give two ****s about Hillary, but we do. She profited as Secretary of State, giving all kinds of foreign countries special treatment.
 
American said:
You don't give two ****s about Hillary, but we do. She profited as Secretary of State, giving all kinds of foreign countries special treatment.
Click to expand...

Then charge her and put her in prison, or stfu about it. If you steal 1 million dollars, and I steal 10 million dollars. You can't tell the judge, "but he stole 10 million" and avoid prosecution. Doesn't work that way. Even if I get away with stealing 10 million dollars.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
So instead of divesting himself the proper way,
Click to expand...
Proper way? iLOL
That's funny.


ThoughtEx. said:
So let's hear it, what makes Trump so special that he gets away with something like this?
Click to expand...
Gets away with? What exactly is he getting away with? Something you do not like?

That is basically all you really are saying; You do not like it. :baby2
 
Parrish said:
It's time to get over the Clinton's and hold 45 and his crew accountable. She's not POTUS. Continually countering with HRC is not a defense of 45. It's an excuse.

The buck stops with 45.
Click to expand...

There is no issue with upholding standards. Kindly Apply them across the board.

So if we wish to suggest that the president is using his position to enrich his personal self... ok.
So did Obama.
So did Clinton.

If anything, by the standards that are being applied to 45, Trump is the LEAST corrupt of the three. He was already a wealthy man, running an almost century old business. The other two became wealthy because they were elected president.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Then charge her and put her in prison, or stfu about it. If you steal 1 million dollars, and I steal 10 million dollars. You can't tell the judge, "but he stole 10 million" and avoid prosecution. Doesn't work that way. Even if I get away with stealing 10 million dollars.
Click to expand...

1008_WVimmunity.jpg
 
Athanasius68 said:
And as soon as mrs. Clinton loses the election, they close up shop.
Why do you suppose that is? Poverty got wiped out?
Click to expand...
In the words of Mark Twain, 'reports of the Clinton Foundation's demise are exaggerated.' The website is active and is accepting donations. You are the victim of fake news.

So, the fact that they did not shut down undercuts your theory of nefarious reasons for them shutting down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom