(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.

Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.

My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

(04-08-2019 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.

Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.

My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

I find it interesting that such smart people think a multi-billionaire would be influenced by such a paltry sum.

It's the difference between being one of a few guys donating $20,000,000 and one of a thousand paying $400 for a room.

Strange you think renting a room get's Trump's attention.

I once asked a local politician to meet me for lunch to discuss something. At the end, I asked if it would be a problem if I got the check. He said (jokingly), if you think I can be bought for a hamburger, you have another think coming.

PS. He voted against me. I guess somebody else got the combo.

But I want to know, how does he please all 1000 of his renters every day? So each morning, he calls for a list of who is staying there, and then he spends the day making sure they all get what they want - even if it goes directly against what another renter wants. How does he choose between hamas and Israel? The bigger room?

First, do you think people only rent a single room for a single night at the hotel? Do you think that hotels only rent out rooms and don't have other revenue streams? You're playing dumb, and it's rather unbecoming.

Second, do you think that a vain president doesn't care if people stay at his hotel?

Third, it's not that someone renting a room for a night get's Trump's attention. It's that people believe that using his hotel will curry favor when they need help. That because they have frequented Trump's hotel, and can tell him they did, Trump will be more malleable and willing to assist them.

(04-08-2019 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.

Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.

My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

I find it interesting that such smart people think a multi-billionaire would be influenced by such a paltry sum.

It's the difference between being one of a few guys donating $20,000,000 and one of a thousand paying $400 for a room.

Strange you think renting a room get's Trump's attention.

I once asked a local politician to meet me for lunch to discuss something. At the end, I asked if it would be a problem if I got the check. He said (jokingly), if you think I can be bought for a hamburger, you have another think coming.

PS. He voted against me. I guess somebody else got the combo.

But I want to know, how does he please all 1000 of his renters every day? So each morning, he calls for a list of who is staying there, and then he spends the day making sure they all get what they want - even if it goes directly against what another renter wants. How does he choose between hamas and Israel? The bigger room?

First, do you think people only rent a single room for a single night at the hotel? Do you think that hotels only rent out rooms and don't have other revenue streams? You're playing dumb, and it's rather unbecoming.

Second, do you think that a vain president doesn't care if people stay at his hotel?

Third, it's not that someone renting a room for a night get's Trump's attention. It's that people believe that using his hotel will curry favor when they need help. That because they have frequented Trump's hotel, and can tell him they did, Trump will be more malleable and willing to assist them.

First, one night, ten nights, still a drop in the bucket. I guess the other revenue stream would be renting out meeting rooms. Still a drop in the bucket. Drops do not sway corrupt people people. Nothing sways honest people. Either way, no sway. I wouldn't expect Hillary to be swayed by a $1000 donation to her charity.

Second, I haven't heard Trump bragging about occupancy rates.

Third, only fools would think that using the hotel would give anyone a leg up on getting what they want. If fools want to believe that, cannot be helped. People believe what they want to believe, that's why some of them wear tin foil hats.

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.

Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.

My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.

My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?

(04-08-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?

And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).

I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.

In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?

Now you're just being dense :(

(04-08-2019 06:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?

Now you're just being dense :(

You did this earlier to 93 - really not seeing what you’re talking about.

I disagree with you that a POTUS owning a business - even a peanut farm - is a potential conflict of interest. I can provide you countless articles where other people share my opinion. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean I am full of fallacies or dense.

Speaking to the point that a $400 single night stay is not going to sway a businessman as wealthy as Trump:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sa...es-2018-10

"The most recent example came last year, as The Washington Post reported in [/b]August that a visit from Saudi officials to Trump's Trump International Hotel in New York City helped boost the hotel's quarterly revenue by 13% in 2018's first quarter.

The bump came after two straight years of booking declines for the property, according to a letter obtained by the Post in which the manager of the Trump hotel cited "a last-minute visit to New York by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia."

In addition, a lobbying firm connected to the Saudi government also paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, between October 2016 and March 2017."

(04-08-2019 09:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Speaking to the point that a $400 single night stay is not going to sway a businessman as wealthy as Trump:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sa...es-2018-10
"The most recent example came last year, as The Washington Post reported in [/b]August that a visit from Saudi officials to Trump's Trump International Hotel in New York City helped boost the hotel's quarterly revenue by 13% in 2018's first quarter.
The bump came after two straight years of booking declines for the property, according to a letter obtained by the Post in which the manager of the Trump hotel cited "a last-minute visit to New York by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia."
In addition, a lobbying firm connected to the Saudi government also paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, between October 2016 and March 2017."

Where is the indication that he was swayed by this? I think he has always favored an friendly posture toward the Saudis.

(04-08-2019 10:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 09:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Speaking to the point that a $400 single night stay is not going to sway a businessman as wealthy as Trump:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sa...es-2018-10
"The most recent example came last year, as The Washington Post reported in [/b]August that a visit from Saudi officials to Trump's Trump International Hotel in New York City helped boost the hotel's quarterly revenue by 13% in 2018's first quarter.
The bump came after two straight years of booking declines for the property, according to a letter obtained by the Post in which the manager of the Trump hotel cited "a last-minute visit to New York by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia."
In addition, a lobbying firm connected to the Saudi government also paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, between October 2016 and March 2017."

Where is the indication that he was swayed by this? I think he has always favored an friendly posture toward the Saudis.

Owl#'s, I'm not saying that he was swayed by this. I have no insight into that.

I'm simply saying that there there is significant $$$ that can be directed into Trump's pocket book through a single hotel. Possibly enough to catch his attention. Again... the appearance of conflict of interest isn't great. If you were pissed off about the Clinton Foundation accepting donations while Hillary was SOS (and you have a right to be), then I believe that this should piss you off as well.

(04-08-2019 09:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The bump came after two straight years of booking declines

Booking declines? How can that happen when everybody and his dog are booking rooms in order to sway the President?

Maybe people are staying elsewhere since staying at his place holds no advantage but is more expensive.

(04-08-2019 06:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.

On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.

On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?

I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.

None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?

Now you're just being dense :(

I would think a businessman with his own massive stream of income would be less likely to be swayed by bribes than an otherwise penniless professional politician.

JMHO, but based on interactions with rich people, including billionaires.

It seems the lefties here base their opinions not on logic, but on the fact that it is Trump.

(04-08-2019 11:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 06:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  None of these disturb me and the Clinton Foundation is not readily excused.

How many times do I have to say that had Clinton become president, the Foundation would have been a significant conflict of interest?

But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial. This isn't some Motel 6 we're talking about here. I just don't get how willingly ignorant so many people can be to the fact that POTUS' having known financial stakes in any business creates a significant conflict of interest that can be exploited. Just like the Trump, tt doesn't mean that the exploitation will happen, but the conflict of interest is present, in broad daylight.

And calling that out doesn't mean I'm disturbed by it. And wanting Trump to have divested in his businesses doesn't mean I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, outside of articles that point to a drop in revenue (but that leave out the closing of the Clinton Initiative), I am not aware of what makes it the most notorious vehicles for peddling influence. Can you send me some articles? Similar to Trump, I definitely understand the concern for it being used as that, given who Hillary worked with as SOS and what groups the Clinton Foundation worked with.

Lad, you're a good guy, but you're out of your depth here. There are just too many fallacies in your latest reply to refute line-by-line. Give it a rest.

What fallacies? And I’m not sure what I should rest, standing by my opinion that owning a hotel in DC that brings in $40 MM in revenue is a conflict of interest for the POTUS?

Now you're just being dense :(

I would think a businessman with his own massive stream of income would be less likely to be swayed by bribes than an otherwise penniless professional politician.

JMHO, but based on interactions with rich people, including billionaires.

It seems the lefties here base their opinions not on logic, but on the fact that it is Trump.

On the flip side, generally you become as wealthy as Trump says he is when money is a significant motivator. Also, people that own their own business are generally highly motivated to do what is best for their busines.

But one’s willingness to be swayed by money has nothing to do with whether or not a potential for conflicts of interest exist, because that is impossible to determine. If that were the case, wouldn’t that be the argument for waving away all conflicts of interests?

(04-08-2019 10:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Owl#'s, I'm not saying that he was swayed by this. I have no insight into that.
I'm simply saying that there there is significant $$$ that can be directed into Trump's pocket book through a single hotel. Possibly enough to catch his attention.

Not really. This is a perspective difference. For someone in what appears to be your situation (still relatively young, perhaps building wealth, but not really wealthy yet) or even mine (older, built a small fortune, enough to live on, but not a huge one), that could be big enough to have an effect.

But Trump's situation is different. The money those people pay to rent a room doesn't go directly to him. Those hotels are owned by entities other than Donald Trump personally, and from what I've been led to believe, he merely puts his name on the property and gets paid some sort of naming rights fee. It's entirely possible, and in fact highly likely, that whether the prime minister of Slobbovia stays in the Trump hotel or the Best Western has no impact at all on Donald Trump financially.

As I've learned on here from trying to explain the impact of tax policy, it's really hard to explain to somebody who works for a paycheck exactly how life works for rich people. What seems like enough to be a conflict of interest, and probably would be for one of us, simply isn't for them in a lot of cases.

(04-09-2019 06:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  On the flip side, generally you become as wealthy as Trump says he is when money is a significant motivator. Also, people that own their own business are generally highly motivated to do what is best for their business.

Umm, not exactly. People who focus solely on making money tend not to do as well as people who are motivated by providing the highest quality for whatever price range in which they operate.

And remember, Trump doesn't own these businesses like your father owned a hardware store or your next door neighbor owned a restaurant. The properties are owned by a complex organization of corporations, S Corps, limited partnerships, and LLCs (not to mention the complexities associated with any foreign properties). And much has been made of the proposition that Trump does not own and operate any of them, he just lends his name to the property in exchange for a hefty fee. At the end of the day, it's more likely than not that Donald Trump personally does not benefit if the prime minister of Slobbovia stays at a Trump hotel or at Best Western. That's one reason why seeing Trump's tax returns is going to be of such little value. If you wanted to know about the kinds of things that people are suggesting, you would need to see personal financial statements, not tax returns, and we have never asked that of any president (perhaps we should, along with a bunch of other stuff).

(04-08-2019 10:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If you were pissed off about the Clinton Foundation accepting donations while Hillary was SOS (and you have a right to be), then I believe that this should piss you off as well.

The gifts to the Clinton Foundation were in the six-figures range. That's a lot different from renting a hotel room.

And much has been made of the fact that the Clinton Foundation was non-profit, so the money didn't go directly to the Clintons. But it did go to their foundation, and they had control of where it was spent, and that gave them a lot of power that they could leverage for personal advantage. It is my understanding that Chelsea was employed by the Foundation at one time, for a fairly large salary, and that is something that the Clintons could not have managed without the Foundation.

It should also be noted that, under the ownership structure that I have been led to believe exists for the Trump properties, the $1,000 for a nightly room rental does not go to Trump, and in fact Trump is so insulated from the operations of the property that not one penny of that is likely to make it to his hands. He doesn't have control of those funds, the entities that operate the hotels do.

So which is more likely to create a conflict of interest? One, I'm going to spend $1,000 for a night in your hotel, which will be paid to an entity that you don't own or control, and you will be paid a fee that has nothing to do with whether I stayed there, or two, I'm going to give $150,000 to a foundation that you do control, and that you can direct that money to whatever objective you want?

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

(04-08-2019 10:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Owl#'s, I'm not saying that he was swayed by this. I have no insight into that.
I'm simply saying that there there is significant $$$ that can be directed into Trump's pocket book through a single hotel. Possibly enough to catch his attention.

Not really. This is a perspective difference. For someone in what appears to be your situation (still relatively young, perhaps building wealth, but not really wealthy yet) or even mine (older, built a small fortune, enough to live on, but not a huge one), that could be big enough to have an effect.

But Trump's situation is different. The money those people pay to rent a room doesn't go directly to him. Those hotels are owned by entities other than Donald Trump personally, and from what I've been led to believe, he merely puts his name on the property and gets paid some sort of naming rights fee. It's entirely possible, and in fact highly likely, that whether the prime minister of Slobbovia stays in the Trump hotel or the Best Western has no impact at all on Donald Trump financially.

I'm not sure about that. I believe that at some point Trump's business model went from owning properties outright to simply receiving a naming rights fee. I don't know when exactly it changed and where the DC property falls into the mix. I would assume, though, that the lawsuits that are making their way through the system currently would have been thrown out a long time ago if none of the hotel money found its way to Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/0...ts-1041324

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

(04-08-2019 10:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Owl#'s, I'm not saying that he was swayed by this. I have no insight into that.
I'm simply saying that there there is significant $$$ that can be directed into Trump's pocket book through a single hotel. Possibly enough to catch his attention.

Not really. This is a perspective difference. For someone in what appears to be your situation (still relatively young, perhaps building wealth, but not really wealthy yet) or even mine (older, built a small fortune, enough to live on, but not a huge one), that could be big enough to have an effect.

As I've learned on here from trying to explain the impact of tax policy, it's really hard to explain to somebody who works for a paycheck exactly how life works for rich people. What seems like enough to be a conflict of interest, and probably would be for one of us, simply isn't for them in a lot of cases.

You seem to be implying that the ultra-rich are somehow immune to conflicts of interest? History seems to disagree with that notion. More likely you believe that the money potentially directed to Trump is too small to interest him (you keep citing a one room/one night stay as an example). As has been previously cited, there is potential for 6-figure and probably 7-figure revenue to be directed to these properties.

Also... most of the ultra-rich people that I know seem to be keenly interested in further building their fortunes.

(04-08-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I'm shocked that you think the ownership of a hotel that grossed $40 MM in revenue in 2017 is close to immaterial

Where did you get this number?

I have no idea what the Holiday Inn down the street grossed.

I know you are just an engineer, but gross numbers are not net numbers. Actually, that number seems low for a gross.

But it is immaterial to the release of Trump's tax returns. That number, and the net number, will not appear on Trump's tax returns. In fact there may be no entry at all that goes back to the hotel. But there certainly will be no entry that says "Minister from Slobovia, $250K for 6 months in Suite 2021". So why the need for Trump's 1040?

Oh, wait you say, we also need the tax return for Trump Hotel, Inc. But that will not show a line saying "Minister from slobovia, $250K for 6 month stay". It will just show gross revenue and total expenses, and the net will be either profit or loss.

Si then, you say, we need all the operating records of the hotel detailing every guest, the length of his stay, and the total bill.

Essentially a total audit By politically motivated amateurs. Nothing bad could happen there.

Then multiply this by 400, or whatever the number of properties and corporations represented on Trump's 1040 is.

Giant witch hunt. Lots of room for innuendo, which seems to be the DNC's main weapon.

Of course, we also have to investigate which properties did not show up on the 1040, and why.

Total witch hunt.

And all triggered by providing his 1040 to a bunch of people who want to make as much trouble for him as possible(your party, Lad, in case you don't get it.) just because he won an election in which he was an underdog. has no Democrat ever won as an underdog? AOC?

Makes more and more sense not to release the returns to me.

By the way, where is the list of lobbyists who ate at Nancy Pelosi's restaurants, and how much they spent? Won't find it on her 1040. But, I am pretty sure that influences her votes. She is a very vain person, just look at all those face lifts. She never appears in public with a hair out of place.

Most rich people are not motivated by greed, but if that is what you think of Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Stryer, Schultz, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and all the others, so be it.

I hear we are still waiting on Sanders' tax returns...from 2016. Now, $50K would make a big difference in his income.

(04-09-2019 07:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

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

(04-08-2019 10:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Owl#'s, I'm not saying that he was swayed by this. I have no insight into that.
I'm simply saying that there there is significant $$$ that can be directed into Trump's pocket book through a single hotel. Possibly enough to catch his attention.

Not really. This is a perspective difference. For someone in what appears to be your situation (still relatively young, perhaps building wealth, but not really wealthy yet) or even mine (older, built a small fortune, enough to live on, but not a huge one), that could be big enough to have an effect.

But Trump's situation is different. The money those people pay to rent a room doesn't go directly to him. Those hotels are owned by entities other than Donald Trump personally, and from what I've been led to believe, he merely puts his name on the property and gets paid some sort of naming rights fee. It's entirely possible, and in fact highly likely, that whether the prime minister of Slobbovia stays in the Trump hotel or the Best Western has no impact at all on Donald Trump financially.

I'm not sure about that. I believe that at some point Trump's business model went from owning properties outright to simply receiving a naming rights fee. I don't know when exactly it changed and where the DC property falls into the mix. I would assume, though, that the lawsuits that are making their way through the system currently would have been thrown out a long time ago if none of the hotel money found its way to Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/0...ts-1041324

My understanding is that Trump DC is “owned” by the Trump Organization, which Donald Trump still owns. I saw “owned” because the Trump organization leases the building from the GSA.