Her last name is going to both generate and take away business.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You will never prove that. That is the problem. Virtually all politicians have some relationship with one or more lobbying group that is shady. I think all of them do in reality. Those who don't are probably new to the scene and didn't "make new friends" yet. There isn't much of a scandal here.

Every close friend and/or big time donor has been extended special consideration by every president in our history - with ambassador roles being one of the most plush jobs available. These close friends/donors pay to have access to the ear of the president. With Ivanka being an unelected advisor, I don't see how this is much different - if at all - from cronies getting benefits from being friends of the president.

(04-18-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

and while she was SOS?

I believe she was still on their board in some capacity, but she was not taking a salary. I could be wrong.

and as NY's senator?

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

and while she was SOS?

I believe she was still on their board in some capacity, but she was not taking a salary. I could be wrong.

and as NY's senator?

Dude

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You're smarter than this... or I'm not as stupid as the people you normally talk to.

Unlike previous presidents, this one has actually done something in his life involving other countries other than be a politician... It's going to come with the territory. You're essentially suggesting (because it's what you want) that nobody who has ever done anything EXCEPT sell their votes to the highest bidder should be qualified to be President.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the Constitution exists as a list of silly and pointless 'rules' which are parsed by people doing exactly what you seem to be doing. Politicians get gifts all the time. Obama was given the Nobel Prize. The obvious purpose of the clause was to avoid politicians giving OUR NATIONAL favor to other countries in exchange for PERSONAL gain.... i.e. if the trademarks were held up until Ivanka did something for China. You've seen no evidence of anything remotely resembling that, nor any evidence that such a thing would be 'worth' that cost. The Trumps are all millionaires, and you're talking about them risking their reputations and futures on something this trivial? Be serious.

Once again, the left is simultaneously arguing that Trump (and his family now) are somehow in the pockets of China and Russia, while also at risk of war for challenging them (remember when he took the call from Taiwan?)


You can't divest something that you own, solely... and that was NEVER the intention of the clause. No 'farmer' was required to sell his farm, nor was his family required to stop working the farm... yet it undeniably increased in value because it was owned by 'The President'.... and Billy Beer and Carter's Peanut farms certainly did better.

The left isn't really this foolish are they? This is all absolutely stupid... and I think most of you know it.

(04-18-2017 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You're smarter than this... or I'm not as stupid as the people you normally talk to.

Unlike previous presidents, this one has actually done something in his life involving other countries other than be a politician... It's going to come with the territory. You're essentially suggesting (because it's what you want) that nobody who has ever done anything EXCEPT sell their votes to the highest bidder should be qualified to be President.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the Constitution exists as a list of silly and pointless 'rules' which are parsed by people doing exactly what you seem to be doing. Politicians get gifts all the time. Obama was given the Nobel Prize. The obvious purpose of the clause was to avoid politicians giving OUR NATIONAL favor to other countries in exchange for PERSONAL gain.... i.e. if the trademarks were held up until Ivanka did something for China. You've seen no evidence of anything remotely resembling that, nor any evidence that such a thing would be 'worth' that cost. The Trumps are all millionaires, and you're talking about them risking their reputations and futures on something this trivial? Be serious.

Once again, the left is simultaneously arguing that Trump (and his family now) are somehow in the pockets of China and Russia, while also at risk of war for challenging them (remember when he took the call from Taiwan?)


You can't divest something that you own, solely... and that was NEVER the intention of the clause. No 'farmer' was required to sell his farm, nor was his family required to stop working the farm... yet it undeniably increased in value because it was owned by 'The President'.... and Billy Beer and Carter's Peanut farms certainly did better.

The left isn't really this foolish are they? This is all absolutely stupid... and I think most of you know it.

Well she does make her clothing there so that is doing something for china.

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)Leftwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

And Obama did not take the cash prize but donated it all to charity...and Carter put his farm in a blind trust and Congress still went after him for keeping a slush fund...and Nixon sold most his assets....

And no I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that Trump was not qualified to be president.

And the emoluments clause absolutely exists to prevent people from profiting regardless of whether the paying country receives any immediate quid pro quo. It's there to remove any chance that somewhere down the line those employed will act in the interest of the paying country. It matters not if a direct favor is received at the time. I suggest you consult the consensus legal opinion on this.

Trust me, if it hasn't happened already, it certainly will in 4 years that Trump or one of his family members will have to make a decision that will hurt our country while helping their business or vice versa. The most prudent action is to remove that conflict before it ever arises.

It will never cease to amaze me watching all you principled types the last 8 years now suddenly falling in line behind the most untrustworthy individual to ever hold the office of the presidency simply because of the letter behind his name.

Trump is a skilled crook. Sad that you just can't admit it yet...but I bet you all will someday.

(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

(04-18-2017 02:24 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

and while she was SOS?

I believe she was still on their board in some capacity, but she was not taking a salary. I could be wrong.

and as NY's senator?

Dude

Look at the CF donor list and then look who paid Bill and Hillary Clinton money for speeches. Illegal, not that I know of, but unethical as all get out.

(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)Leftwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You know what? I'll gladly take an ethical nightmare over the anti-American who served for 8 years or the criminal organizatio that wished to follow.

(04-18-2017 03:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)Leftwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

Grow up.

(04-18-2017 09:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I get that you are referring to one specific example, but we have seen politicians and friends/family of politicians enrich themselves due to access to their elected office. I hate all of that and would love to see these ******** charged with crimes for doing so. Unfortunately, there is no oversight committee that can do this effectively. That's because at a minimum a large minority of our elected officials are gaming the system and their friends and families ARE being enriched. Sometimes the politicians are brought to justice. The majority of times the politicians not only gotten away with it, but they did so in such blatant ways. And their political parties would give them cover to help them get away with it - all to preserve those majorities.

This.

Just ask yourself (generally speaking, not you personally Miko) how does one go from say, being a modest State senator or maybe Governor, end up a US House member or senator, and after spending 8-12 years in Congress leave a multimillionaire?

On an annual salary of somewhere between 147,500- 174,000? Is everyone aware that their ability to use information available to them only in the purchaser and sale of stocks (ie. insider trading) was perfectly legal and widely done until very recently? That and they leave office, immediately go down the street to K street and immediately start pulling down 7 figure salaries as lobbyists and "consultants".

Swampity swamp swamp.

(04-18-2017 03:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I get that you are referring to one specific example, but we have seen politicians and friends/family of politicians enrich themselves due to access to their elected office. I hate all of that and would love to see these ******** charged with crimes for doing so. Unfortunately, there is no oversight committee that can do this effectively. That's because at a minimum a large minority of our elected officials are gaming the system and their friends and families ARE being enriched. Sometimes the politicians are brought to justice. The majority of times the politicians not only gotten away with it, but they did so in such blatant ways. And their political parties would give them cover to help them get away with it - all to preserve those majorities.

This.

Just ask yourself (generally speaking, not you personally Miko) how does one go from say, being a modest State senator or maybe Governor, end up a US House member or senator, and after spending 8-12 years in Congress leave a multimillionaire?

On an annual salary of somewhere between 147,500- 174,000? Is everyone aware that their ability to use information available to them only in the purchaser and sale of stocks (ie. insider trading) was perfectly legal and widely done until very recently? That and they leave office, immediately go down the street to K street and immediately start pulling down 7 figure salaries as lobbyists and "consultants".

Swampity swamp swamp.

Nice gig if you can get it.

(04-18-2017 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You're smarter than this... or I'm not as stupid as the people you normally talk to.

Unlike previous presidents, this one has actually done something in his life involving other countries other than be a politician... It's going to come with the territory. You're essentially suggesting (because it's what you want) that nobody who has ever done anything EXCEPT sell their votes to the highest bidder should be qualified to be President.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the Constitution exists as a list of silly and pointless 'rules' which are parsed by people doing exactly what you seem to be doing. Politicians get gifts all the time. Obama was given the Nobel Prize. The obvious purpose of the clause was to avoid politicians giving OUR NATIONAL favor to other countries in exchange for PERSONAL gain.... i.e. if the trademarks were held up until Ivanka did something for China. You've seen no evidence of anything remotely resembling that, nor any evidence that such a thing would be 'worth' that cost. The Trumps are all millionaires, and you're talking about them risking their reputations and futures on something this trivial? Be serious.

Once again, the left is simultaneously arguing that Trump (and his family now) are somehow in the pockets of China and Russia, while also at risk of war for challenging them (remember when he took the call from Taiwan?)


You can't divest something that you own, solely... and that was NEVER the intention of the clause. No 'farmer' was required to sell his farm, nor was his family required to stop working the farm... yet it undeniably increased in value because it was owned by 'The President'.... and Billy Beer and Carter's Peanut farms certainly did better.

The left isn't really this foolish are they? This is all absolutely stupid... and I think most of you know it.

How many have ever heard of the emoluments clause until now? When has it ever been an issue until now? It's just another red herring in a growing list of them. Progressives will continue to throw anything they can at POTUS in the hopes something sticks until their base gets bored and goes back to their video games.

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.
If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

Absolutely not. You obviously don't understand the emoluments clause. Hambone's recital is much closer to what it actually says.

(04-18-2017 03:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 03:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)Leftwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

Grow up.

Don't be a Socialist.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.
If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

Absolutely not. You obviously don't understand the emoluments clause. Hambone's recital is much closer to what it actually says.

No...sorry...I'll take the word of an actual ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, instead of an anonymous internet poster.

(04-18-2017 03:49 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.

You're smarter than this... or I'm not as stupid as the people you normally talk to.

Unlike previous presidents, this one has actually done something in his life involving other countries other than be a politician... It's going to come with the territory. You're essentially suggesting (because it's what you want) that nobody who has ever done anything EXCEPT sell their votes to the highest bidder should be qualified to be President.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the Constitution exists as a list of silly and pointless 'rules' which are parsed by people doing exactly what you seem to be doing. Politicians get gifts all the time. Obama was given the Nobel Prize. The obvious purpose of the clause was to avoid politicians giving OUR NATIONAL favor to other countries in exchange for PERSONAL gain.... i.e. if the trademarks were held up until Ivanka did something for China. You've seen no evidence of anything remotely resembling that, nor any evidence that such a thing would be 'worth' that cost. The Trumps are all millionaires, and you're talking about them risking their reputations and futures on something this trivial? Be serious.

Once again, the left is simultaneously arguing that Trump (and his family now) are somehow in the pockets of China and Russia, while also at risk of war for challenging them (remember when he took the call from Taiwan?)


You can't divest something that you own, solely... and that was NEVER the intention of the clause. No 'farmer' was required to sell his farm, nor was his family required to stop working the farm... yet it undeniably increased in value because it was owned by 'The President'.... and Billy Beer and Carter's Peanut farms certainly did better.

The left isn't really this foolish are they? This is all absolutely stupid... and I think most of you know it.

How many have ever heard of the emoluments clause until now? When has it ever been an issue until now? It's just another red herring in a growing list of them. Progressives will continue to throw anything they can at POTUS in the hopes something sticks until their base gets bored and goes back to their video games.

It's not been an issue before because we've never had a president before with so many business dealings with foreign countries. Sorry that's an inconvenience.