2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
Did you read the article?

These were cases that were negotiated because of actions deemed wrongful by Trump.
Um they were in lieu of fines against businesses. Not sure why you guys are confusing a business with an individual.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Um they were in lieu of fines against businesses. Not sure why you guys are confusing a business with an individual.
I understand for limited liability purposes corporations and their owners are seperate entities. But in situations of self dealing the distinction is meaningless. The six figure donations he made represented money his business didn't have to pay, which in turn directly benefitted his portfolio.

Regulations against self dealing talk about personal benefit, that's definitively demonstrated.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Um they were in lieu of fines against businesses. Not sure why you guys are confusing a business with an individual.
I should have said Trumps businesses.

Still why is a charity that has nothing to do with those businesses covering these cost?

I don't understand why you are drawing this line this is not a business or individual issue.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I should have said Trumps businesses.

Still why is a charity that has nothing to do with those businesses covering these cost?

I don't understand why you are drawing this line this is not a business or individual issue.
Because being pedantic is all Trump apologists have at this point.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
Regulations against self dealing talk about personal benefit, that's definitively demonstrated.
In the business world this stuff is pretty common for a person running more then one business to use both for mutually beneficial purposes. If a Charity paid a fine to the government on behalf of the other business you have a pretty serious issue. Because charitable funds should only be used for charitable purposes. However if a charity gives money to another charity they are staying within the bounds of what a charitable organization is supposed to do. It's why this is a non issue in my book. Something that happens every day and harmed zero people. The charitable funds, went to actual charity.

The problem with this personal benefit talk is that none of this personally benefited Trump. It only helped businesses that he was helping to run.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
In the business world this stuff is pretty common for a person running more then one business to use both for mutually beneficial purposes. If a Charity paid a fine to the government on behalf of the other business you have a pretty serious issue. Because charitable funds should only be used for charitable purposes. However if a charity gives money to another charity they are staying within the bounds of what a charitable organization is supposed to do. It's why this is a non issue in my book. Something that happens every day and harmed zero people. The charitable funds, went to actual charity.

The problem with this personal benefit talk is that none of this personally benefited Trump. It only helped businesses that he was helping to run.
But he doesn't just help run the business, he owns the business. Just like the Cowboys value is figured into Jerry Jones net worth, the value of the Trump's businesses figure into his. That means, by using charitable contributions in lieu of fines against his business, he's increased his net worth, with those contributions. That personally benefitted Trump.

If he had no stake in the business I might agree with you, it'd be closer to the Clinton foundation issues. Since there's no actual wealth that is transferred from the Clinton Foundation to their personal wealth. But ownership of a for profit company constitutes an asset, and anything that adds value to that asset personally benefits the owner.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
The GOP has become a pity party for white males

The GOP has become a pity party for white males

A cottage industry of apologists for Donald Trump and his supporters has sprung up to excuse, justify, infantilize and pity his core group of white, non-college-educated males who lash out at immigrants and globalism more generally. Victims ignored by elites! The Emmy winners mock them! There are more than a few problems with this.

First, conservatives used to stand up for “creative destruction,” the rise and fall of businesses and entire industries, which is an intrinsic part of a dynamic free market. If you’re not a hard-core Libertarian, the average conservative has considered the solution to this problem to be a safety net and tax, education and other policies that allow workers to rebound; it has never been to halt the marketplace or shift to a government-planned economy. The latter has been tried and has failed, as conservatives are quick to point out when ridiculing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or other anti-capitalist wags. It also exempts these voters from responsibility for their lives. The coal town is depopulated? Yes, that’s sad, but why are they not moving — as immigrants do — to where the jobs are?

Second, the ills about which Trump and his apologists complain have little to do with the plight of many of their supporters (whose average salary is $72,000, much higher than that of the average Sanders or Hillary Clinton supporter). The things Trump demonizes — free trade and immigration — did not cause the decline of low-skilled manufacturing (automation did that); they have, however, contributed to the resurgence of high-skill manufacturing in the United States to such an extent that we have record numbers of unfilled manufacturing jobs. If Trump were railing about the lack of job training programs, that would be one thing, but he is not, of course. Constructive measures that do not involve attacks on others are of no concern to him. He’s simply casting about for targets for white, lower-class rage.

Third, Trump’s defenders seem to demand that we treat members of his base delicately for fear of ruffling their feathers and damaging their self-esteem. When you play the “Hollywood makes fun of us” card, you get perilously close to political correctness and emotional feebleness, not things Trump and his ilk are supposed to promote. Even worse, complaining that other people don’t wish them “Merry Christmas” — and then transforming that into a war against Christianity — is victimology rarely seen outside the “safe spaces” on college campuses.

Fourth, the pity party for lower-class white males excludes virtually everyone else. Are we expected to turn the economy inside out for the latter, even to the extent that it harms those who have prepared themselves for a competitive workplace — or who simply want to enjoy moderately priced consumer goods not priced out of their grasp by tariffs? Why concern ourselves with the delicate sensibilities of the “Merry Christmas”-deprived and not with Mexican immigrants (“murderers”), women (Trump thinks it’s a mistake to let wives work outside the home), African Americans (whose lives he insists are a “disaster”), the disabled, etc.?

In elevating one specific group — older white males — Trump fails the test of a leader in a diverse, complex society in which we want to maximize benefits for the largest number of people. He seems not to grasp the demands of living in a prosperous 21st-century society –technical prowess, flexibility, cooperation and respect for others.

It also happens to be dumb politics, as Gerald Seib points out:

Suburban women “have in the past voted consistently Republican, and this year they are leaning heavily toward Hillary Clinton” says GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who works with Sen. Marco Rubio. Says one Trump adviser flatly: “Suburban women will decide this election.”

Broadly speaking, the Trump appeal is strongest among older men without a college degree, and among those who feel particular economic stress. . . .

Montgomery [County, Pa.] and the other suburban counties around Philadelphia have “a very, very diversified economy,” with high-tech, insurance, banking and retail activity, says Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa.

While such suburbs don’t represent Trump country generally, that’s specifically true among suburban women, who don’t appear to warm to the Trump style.

There is no virtue in pandering to Trumpkins at the expense of every other group and the country’s general prosperity. In making these white males (and only them) into victims and encouraging them to blame outsiders or menacing forces beyond their control, Trump does what Republicans used to accuse liberals of doing — pitting one group against another in a zero-sum conception of the economy. It is doing the Trumpkins no favors and it is heightening dissension in a country that needs to rediscover common values and shared endeavors and undertake some systemic reforms in government, education and criminal justice.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,919
When you said Obama personally authorized gun walking that started in 06.
Huh? I never said he started anything. I said he was a big part of fast and furious. Which he was. Would you care to deny that?
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,746
Wait, lower class white males make $72,000 a year? Who wrote this shit?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
In the business world this stuff is pretty common for a person running more then one business to use both for mutually beneficial purposes. If a Charity paid a fine to the government on behalf of the other business you have a pretty serious issue. Because charitable funds should only be used for charitable purposes. However if a charity gives money to another charity they are staying within the bounds of what a charitable organization is supposed to do. It's why this is a non issue in my book. Something that happens every day and harmed zero people. The charitable funds, went to actual charity.

The problem with this personal benefit talk is that none of this personally benefited Trump. It only helped businesses that he was helping to run.

You really just ignored everything in that article if you think all this about one charity giving to another.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Huh? I never said he started anything. I said he was a big part of fast and furious. Which he was. Would you care to deny that?
I deny that and have posted the proof to refute it.

Please define big part off it.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Trump calls for nationwide 'stop-and-frisk' policy
By LOUIS NELSON 09/21/16 04:04 PM EDT
Donald Trump on Wednesday called for the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policing practice to be instituted nationwide as a means of combating violent crime in America’s inner cities.
In a pre-taped interview on Fox News scheduled to air Wednesday night, Trump was asked by an audience member what he would do to address “violence in the black community” and “black-on-black crime.” Trump responded by proposing that “stop-and-frisk” policing, in which an officer is empowered to stop an individual and frisk them for weapons or any other illegal contraband, be adopted nationwide.
Story Continued Below

“I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically,” Trump told the questioner. “You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do.”
The practice, carried out most famously in New York but also by other police departments, is frequently criticized as an avenue for officers commit acts of racial profiling. Others tout it as responsible for a dramatic drop in New York City’s crime rate, although former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said in 2015 that the practice is “not a significant factor in the crime rate of this city.”

-----------

It's funny how many so called "Libertarians" are willing to back this nut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom