(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.

I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

(04-07-2019 09:23 PM)ausowl Wrote:  He wrote a couple of books prior to being elected which combined spent around 100 plus weeks on the NYTimes best seller list. Maybe you forget those lines at the Capital for the 2006 Texas Book Festival.

As Henry Ford noted, "No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

There is a long history of demagogues who's books were widely bought and seldom read. Notable examples include Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong (whose Little Red Book was secretly referred to as the Little-Read Book).

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.

I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Owning a hotel is an ipso facto conflict?

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

(04-07-2019 09:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  As Henry Ford noted, "No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

Difficult to dispute given our present circumstances.

(04-07-2019 09:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.

I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Owning a hotel is an ipso facto conflict?

Owning any business can be when you are in politics because people can attempt to use the frequenting of that business to influence your decisions.

To talk Trump specifically, say we're talking about a much smaller scale and Trump was the mayor of Hoboken, NJ. Let's say he owns a local hotel and a waste company is trying to get the new city contract. Well, what if they happen to get a waste conference to come to Hoboken and use Trump's hotel for the conference. And they then win the city contract.

There's a reason Carter sold his peanut farm and presidents put their investments in a blind trust.

(04-07-2019 09:41 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  As Henry Ford noted, "No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

Difficult to dispute given our present circumstances.

I know! The Democratic party's headlong rush to the left is ironclad proof.

(04-07-2019 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.

I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Owning a hotel is an ipso facto conflict?

Owning any business can be when you are in politics because people can attempt to use the frequenting of that business to influence your decisions.

To talk Trump specifically, say we're talking about a much smaller scale and Trump was the mayor of Hoboken, NJ. Let's say he owns a local hotel and a waste company is trying to get the new city contract. Well, what if they happen to get a waste conference to come to Hoboken and use Trump's hotel for the conference. And they then win the city contract.

There's a reason Carter sold his peanut farm and presidents put their investments in a blind trust.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton absolutely refused to put the Clinton enterprises in a blind trust. And in that case, the conflict of interest was notorious: serving a vessel for currying favor was not merely an incidental effect of the enterprise, but its very reason for being. We may never recover from the behavioral standard they set.

(04-07-2019 09:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.

I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Owning a hotel is an ipso facto conflict?

Owning any business can be when you are in politics because people can attempt to use the frequenting of that business to influence your decisions.

To talk Trump specifically, say we're talking about a much smaller scale and Trump was the mayor of Hoboken, NJ. Let's say he owns a local hotel and a waste company is trying to get the new city contract. Well, what if they happen to get a waste conference to come to Hoboken and use Trump's hotel for the conference. And they then win the city contract.

There's a reason Carter sold his peanut farm and presidents put their investments in a blind trust.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton absolutely refused to put the Clinton enterprises in a blind trust. And in that case, the conflict of interest was notorious: serving a vessel for currying favor was not merely an incidental effect of the enterprise, but its very reason for being. We may never recover from the behavioral standard they set.

George, are you referring to the Clinton Foundation being placed into a blind trust while she was SOS or to their personal assets? The Clintons had a blind trust while Bill was President, I believe.

If you were referring to her time as SOS, certainly a charitable foundation is different than directly increasing one's personal wealth while in office. In terms of their personal assets, the Clintons apparently kept most of their money in cash for a while and then after raking in $$$ on the speaking tour put the other "half" in a general index fund. Neither the cash nor the general index fund seems especially vulnerable to influence peddlers?

(04-07-2019 10:09 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.

Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/

The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.

So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Owning a hotel is an ipso facto conflict?

Owning any business can be when you are in politics because people can attempt to use the frequenting of that business to influence your decisions.

To talk Trump specifically, say we're talking about a much smaller scale and Trump was the mayor of Hoboken, NJ. Let's say he owns a local hotel and a waste company is trying to get the new city contract. Well, what if they happen to get a waste conference to come to Hoboken and use Trump's hotel for the conference. And they then win the city contract.

There's a reason Carter sold his peanut farm and presidents put their investments in a blind trust.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton absolutely refused to put the Clinton enterprises in a blind trust. And in that case, the conflict of interest was notorious: serving a vessel for currying favor was not merely an incidental effect of the enterprise, but its very reason for being. We may never recover from the behavioral standard they set.

George, are you referring to the Clinton Foundation being placed into a blind trust while she was SOS or to their personal assets? The Clintons had a blind trust while Bill was President, I believe.

If you were referring to her time as SOS, certainly a charitable foundation is different than directly increasing one's personal wealth while in office. In terms of their personal assets, the Clintons apparently kept most of their money in cash for a while and then after raking in $$$ on the speaking tour put the other "half" in a general index fund. Neither the cash nor the general index fund seems especially vulnerable to influence peddlers?

I also don't see how that response is relevant to the question George asked and then I answered about owning a hotel (which I expanded to a business in general).

But speaking of Clinton, she did see the obvious conflict that the Clinton Foundation would have created had she won the presidency, and she preemptively said it would stop accepting foreign or corporate donations. Had she won, I would have preferred she follow other's advice and stop accepting donations, period, regardless of how successful the foundation had been.

(04-07-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

How do you differentiate normal from influence peddling? Obviously someone could take advantage of someone's business as a way to buy influence, right?

(04-07-2019 10:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

How do you differentiate normal from influence peddling? Obviously someone could take advantage of someone's business as a way to buy influence, right?

Do you think Trump's tax return will specifically point out the two nights the Minister of Streetcars from Slobovia spent in a Trump hotel?

The funny thing is that you are counting the gd 400 bucks here and the 2k bucks there as a supposed defense to the opening the tax returns. Btw, what is, say, 10k divided 3.1 billion?

And the funny thing is that you are pulling out these supposed terrible practices as a reason for opening up the tax returns. Turning back to the original question, given your spirited examples of 'what not to do', on what line of Trumps tax return do you think you will find that item detailing the two nights the Minister of Streetcars stayed at the Trump hotel? Or even three gd months?

But..... by god! those tax returns MUST BE OPENED!

This is like watching a bunch of first year attorneys cranking out the 375 question interrogatories in a litigation and none of the interrogatories even touch on the core of the matter......

The funny thing is Trump is ratcheting up the defense on this simply to watch the media and Maddow/Cuomo watchers to spin their wheels like a bunch of teenagers on acid doing a Chinese fire drill.

Rent free....

(04-07-2019 10:09 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  George, are you referring to the Clinton Foundation being placed into a blind trust while she was SOS or to their personal assets? The Clintons had a blind trust while Bill was President, I believe.

If you were referring to her time as SOS, certainly a charitable foundation is different than directly increasing one's personal wealth while in office.

Not with respect to currying favor. In fact, as was mentioned (and as you conveniently ignored), the Clinton Foundation stands out in that its very REASON FOR BEING was to serve as a vessel for currying favor. That's a categorically worse conflict-of-interest than owning a few hotels, in cities crowded with hotels.

Compared to the decades of sleaze that the Clintons inflicted on the body politic, while their supporters and apologists cheered them on, Trump's hotel ownership is nothing.

And if with all that sleaze, you still voted for Hillary, then your carping today is worth nothing.

(04-07-2019 10:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... the question George asked and then I answered about owning a hotel (which I expanded to a business in general).

You give yourself too much credit -- it wasn't much of an answer.

But yes, keep insisting that owning a few hotels surrounded by many competing hotels is more sleazy than the Clintons' standard operating procedure.

(04-07-2019 10:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 06:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I skipped over that detail because the list of politicians who became uber-wealthy while "serving" their constituents is endless. It makes no sense to me why this should be the case and it is a black mark on our political system. Singling out Obama in this regard is pointless.

So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

How do you differentiate normal from influence peddling? Obviously someone could take advantage of someone's business as a way to buy influence, right?

If you think $1000 for a night in Trump's hotel is going to buy influence, what does a night in the Lincoln bedroom get you? One is a normal transaction, the other is purely peddling influence.

This is the point that I don't understand. Trump is supposedly guilty of allowing himself to be influenced by normal business transactions, whereas the left seems okay with abnormal transactions entered into by politicians from the left to enrich themselves while in office.

Trump is rich. He doesn't need to peddle influence in order to get rich. He already is. His wealth is in real estate, not cash in the bank or stocks. That kind of wealth is very difficult to quantify. He may think it's $3 billion based on market value. It may be only $1 billion if he had to get out in a hurry. Either way, it's going to be worth more with a healthy economy. And that is a much bigger factor in his wealth than whether the prime minister of Slobbovia spent two nights there.

As for the blind trust idea, that doesn't really work with real estate. He's not going to be president forever. If as president he makes decisions that enhance the value of his real estate, that's going to enhance that value when he gets out, so blind trust doesn't really work.

(04-08-2019 01:57 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 10:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... the question George asked and then I answered about owning a hotel (which I expanded to a business in general).

You give yourself too much credit -- it wasn't much of an answer.

But yes, keep insisting that owning a few hotels surrounded by many competing hotels is more sleazy than the Clintons' standard operating procedure.

Where did I indicate anything close to that? Yikes - looks like I need to spell things out for you.

Owning a hotel in and of itself is not sleazy. Operating the Clinton Foundation in and of itself is not sleazy. Being president and owning a hotel creates numerous potential conflicts of interest. Being president and continuing to accept any donations, regardless of their origin being private or corporate, creates numerous conflicts of interests.

Those conflicts of interest dictate that the president should not have stakes in those businesses/foundations.

And I did provide you an answer - it was short and concise. Yes, owning a hotel, and any business for that matter, while in office, creates a conflict of interest for a president.

(04-08-2019 05:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 10:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

How do you differentiate normal from influence peddling? Obviously someone could take advantage of someone's business as a way to buy influence, right?

If you think $1000 for a night in Trump's hotel is going to buy influence, what does a night in the Lincoln bedroom get you? One is a normal transaction, the other is purely peddling influence.

This is the point that I don't understand. Trump is supposedly guilty of allowing himself to be influenced by normal business transactions, whereas the left seems okay with abnormal transactions entered into by politicians from the left to enrich themselves while in office.

Trump is rich. He doesn't need to peddle influence in order to get rich. He already is. His wealth is in real estate, not cash in the bank or stocks. That kind of wealth is very difficult to quantify. He may think it's $3 billion based on market value. It may be only $1 billion if he had to get out in a hurry. Either way, it's going to be worth more with a healthy economy. And that is a much bigger factor in his wealth than whether the prime minister of Slobbovia spent two nights there.

As for the blind trust idea, that doesn't really work with real estate. He's not going to be president forever. If as president he makes decisions that enhance the value of his real estate, that's going to enhance that value when he gets out, so blind trust doesn't really work.

So why do we keep seeing news reports of companies lobbying the Trump admin staying at the Trump hotel? Or foreign nationals saying that they stay at the Trump hotel specifically because it’s his hotel?

Trump is vain and petty - he’s the kind of already wealthy person who can be influenced by people even spending a single night at his hotel, let alone 500 nights that Saudi lobbyists booked, totally over $250k.

I think the difficulty of Trump divesting all of his holdings is a fair comment. But it does not absolve him of any criticism and, frankly, it’s willfully blind ignorance to try and argue that these obvious conflicts of interest do not exist.

(04-07-2019 10:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 10:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why all the anguish over transactions that are not material to Trump's financial condition? If the prime minister of Slobovia spent two nights in a Trump hotel, that's not even rounding error.
I really think it is far more, "Orange man bad, so let's throw up as many roadblocks as we can," than any serious oversight activity.

But those two days all add up, and foreign nationals have admitted to staying there to curry favor.
Heck, even T-Mobile did it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019...istration/
The Trump hotel is in a good location, but so are the W, JW Marriott, St. Regis, and on, and on. In fact, those are in even better locations.
So are you just comfortable with these types of conflicts of interest?

Yes, because I don't see normal transactions in the ordinary course of business as conflicts of interest.

How do you differentiate normal from influence peddling? Obviously someone could take advantage of someone's business as a way to buy influence, right?

Do you think Trump's tax return will specifically point out the two nights the Minister of Streetcars from Slobovia spent in a Trump hotel?

The funny thing is that you are counting the gd 400 bucks here and the 2k bucks there as a supposed defense to the opening the tax returns. Btw, what is, say, 10k divided 3.1 billion?

And the funny thing is that you are pulling out these supposed terrible practices as a reason for opening up the tax returns. Turning back to the original question, given your spirited examples of 'what not to do', on what line of Trumps tax return do you think you will find that item detailing the two nights the Minister of Streetcars stayed at the Trump hotel? Or even three gd months?

But..... by god! those tax returns MUST BE OPENED!

This is like watching a bunch of first year attorneys cranking out the 375 question interrogatories in a litigation and none of the interrogatories even touch on the core of the matter......

The funny thing is Trump is ratcheting up the defense on this simply to watch the media and Maddow/Cuomo watchers to spin their wheels like a bunch of teenagers on acid doing a Chinese fire drill.

Rent free....

Tanq, take a deep breath. Read what I wrote. And then let me know where I started talking about tax returns...

My primary reason for think Trump should have released his tax returns is because it has been the norm and it shows the public that there is nothing for a candidate to hide. Do I think Trump should break from the norm? No. He should release his.

Do I think Dems should use the legal maneuver they are using to basically subpoena them? No. At this point, I don’t see them adding much value outside of the 2020 campaign, and the fact that he will again, break from norms and won’t be transparent.

(04-08-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So why do we keep seeing news reports of companies lobbying the Trump admin staying at the Trump hotel? Or foreign nationals saying that they stay at the Trump hotel specifically because it’s his hotel?

I don't know why. Maybe because there is a concerted effort by about 95% of the news media to portray Trump in the least favorable light? My guess is that some people stay there because of Trump, and others refuse to stay there because of Trump, and it pretty much balances out in the wash

I don't think you understand how real estate works. Whatever it is worth depends not on whether the prime minister of Slobbvia stayed there last night, but on how many people stay there every night. Any upscale hotel in that location is going to have a pretty high occupancy rate as a matter of supply and demand. If you want to stay there, fine. If you want to stay across the street, fine. But either way, somebody is going to stay there. It's not like the prime minister's dollars go directly into Trump's pocket. That's not how it works.

Quote:Trump is vain and petty - he’s the kind of already wealthy person who can be influenced by people even spending a single night at his hotel, let alone 500 nights that Saudi lobbyists booked, totally over $250k.

And your qualifications to make such an assessment are? From some of your previous comments, I thought you were some kind of engineer.

Quote:I think the difficulty of Trump divesting all of his holdings is a fair comment. But it does not absolve him of any criticism and, frankly, it’s willfully blind ignorance to try and argue that these obvious conflicts of interest do not exist.

I think "obvious conflicts of interest" is vastly overstated. You own a hotel, and somebody pays the rack rate to stay there for a night, that's not enough to buy much interest. You go to congress for 40 years, make $175,000 a year, but you are exempt from the insider trading laws, among others, and you come out worth millions, that's an obvious conflict of interest.

I'm sorry, I just don't see much, if any, conflict of interest here. If you could somehow establish that it was a crappy hotel that would have no customers otherwise, but people stay there strictly to curry favor with Trump, and you could point out obvious cases where such favor was a factor in a significant decision, then you might have something. But transactions in the ordinary course of business just don't reach the threshold.

Say you run a restaurant, and are a democrat. I'm a republican, I bring my family in to have dinner one night. Does that mean you're going to vote for me?

(04-08-2019 07:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So why do we keep seeing news reports of companies lobbying the Trump admin staying at the Trump hotel? Or foreign nationals saying that they stay at the Trump hotel specifically because it’s his hotel?

I don't know why. Maybe because there is a concerted effort by about 95% of the news media to portray Trump in the least favorable light? My guess is that some people stay there because of Trump, and others refuse to stay there because of Trump, and it pretty much balances out in the wash

I don't think you understand how real estate works. Whatever it is worth depends not on whether the prime minister of Slobbvia stayed there last night, but on how many people stay there every night. Any upscale hotel in that location is going to have a pretty high occupancy rate as a matter of supply and demand. If you want to stay there, fine. If you want to stay across the street, fine. But either way, somebody is going to stay there. It's not like the prime minister's dollars go directly into Trump's pocket. That's not how it works.

Quote:Trump is vain and petty - he’s the kind of already wealthy person who can be influenced by people even spending a single night at his hotel, let alone 500 nights that Saudi lobbyists booked, totally over $250k.

And your qualifications to make such an assessment are? From some of your previous comments, I thought you were some kind of engineer.

Quote:I think the difficulty of Trump divesting all of his holdings is a fair comment. But it does not absolve him of any criticism and, frankly, it’s willfully blind ignorance to try and argue that these obvious conflicts of interest do not exist.

I think "obvious conflicts of interest" is vastly overstated. You own a hotel, and somebody pays the rack rate to stay there for a night, that's not enough to buy much interest. You go to congress for 40 years, make $175,000 a year, but you are exempt from the insider trading laws, among others, and you come out worth millions, that's an obvious conflict of interest.

I'm sorry, I just don't see much, if any, conflict of interest here. If you could somehow establish that it was a crappy hotel that would have no customers otherwise, but people stay there strictly to curry favor with Trump, and you could point out obvious cases where such favor was a factor in a significant decision, then you might have something. But transactions in the ordinary course of business just don't reach the threshold.

Say you run a restaurant, and are a democrat. I'm a republican, I bring my family in to have dinner one night. Does that mean you're going to vote for me?

So because I’m an engineer I can’t draw the very obvious conclusion that Trump is vain and petty?