- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deranged Progs Keep Saying Blumpf Is Ruining Democracy/The Constitution (lol). Examples?
Posted on 8/18/19 at 11:55 am to victoire sécurisé
Posted on 8/18/19 at 11:55 am to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Ask yourself how you might feel about this issue if George Soros were POTUS.
That is fricking absolutely idiotic.
Soros and Trump have nothing in common other than money.
quote:
Believing that Trump is violating the emoluments clause doesn’t make you an idiot. Even though the courts have determined otherwise, I’m free to disagree.
Sure it makes you an idiot given the undying effort to get Trump. If they could have gotten him they would have.
1
Posted on 8/18/19 at 11:56 am to CGSC Lobotomy
State Department Strategic Objective 1.3
This is the best I can do. It’s already an objective of the administration. Trump wouldn’t be braking new ground here. He just needs to re-affirm to the world that he supports global democracy.
From your response, you weren’t aware of this, so that reinforces my argument that the world could use a reminder.
This is the best I can do. It’s already an objective of the administration. Trump wouldn’t be braking new ground here. He just needs to re-affirm to the world that he supports global democracy.
From your response, you weren’t aware of this, so that reinforces my argument that the world could use a reminder.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:03 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Trump’s comments on the subject sound almost conciliatory to Communist China’s government.
Yeah, that's why the Hong Kong protesters love Trump so much. Yeah, you're all over this.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:08 pm to victoire sécurisé
George Washington would be worth about a half billion dollars in today's money.
You act as if wealthy people holding political office is something new.
I'm much more concerned about people like the Clintons and Obama's who became wealthy BECAUSE of politics.
You act as if wealthy people holding political office is something new.
I'm much more concerned about people like the Clintons and Obama's who became wealthy BECAUSE of politics.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:10 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
emoluments, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, demonizing the free press, bypassing checks and balances with “temporary” cabinet appointees. Those have already been dismissed as partisan bitching. Oh well.
I’m not a Trump voter, but I tend to agree with him on most policy decisions so I’m always willing to criticize freely. Where/why are these unconstitutional/anti-democracy?
If you’d ask if I think Trump is skeezy and a jerk, I’d say sure. But nothing you listed goes against the Constitution that I’m aware... Emoluments is the closest thing we could argue, and it’s valid in that he’s a businessman that had dealings with those countries, but I struggle to think that he could get away with that under the current microscope.
The two he would be accused of is China and Russia and I think we’d have a hard time saying he’s given either preferential treatment.
quote:
Ask yourself how you might feel about this issue if George Soros were POTUS.
Soros isn’t a natural born citizen and could never be president so I struggle to put that in its proper place. His beginnings in WWII and where he started his fortune in England is something I can’t remove from my opinions about him. The problem with the comparison is that everybody else that’s ascended to the presidency came through government. Their connections, gains, and wealth are because of their government service. Trump had connections and wealth before becoming president.
This post was edited on 8/18/19 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:11 pm to gthog61
quote:
That is fricking absolutely idiotic.
Disagree. If Obama’s company were building a massive condo in Caracas, trying to garner favor with Hugo Chavez, it would be a major fricking storyline on Fox. Rightfully so.
There was a similar situation with Podesta and Uranium One.
I’m sure there are countless examples of government officials with potential conflicts of interest. It’s not idiotic to suggest we need better laws to protect ourselves against conflicts of interest.
Congress is obviously too partisan, and the DOJ’s veil of non-partisanship has been pierced to shreds. I wouldn’t mind seeing an independent ethics board (with at least an advisory role) with 7-year appointments by states’ AG’s.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:21 pm to victoire sécurisé
Exactly what is Trump doing right now that's designed to so greatly enrich him and Trump Org once he leaves office?
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:25 pm to davyjones
quote:
Exactly what is Trump doing right now that's designed to so greatly enrich him and Trump Org once he leaves office?
I don’t know. But that’s not the point. It’s bad policy to allow conflicts of interest. Our laws to safeguard us against conflicts of interest are too loosely enforced by partisan bodies.
I really don’t know how this is debatable. A democratic congress and a democratic appointed AG would protect a democratic POTUS and his(or her) appointees.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:26 pm to davyjones
quote:
Exactly what is Trump doing right now that's designed to so greatly enrich him and Trump Org once he leaves office?
Not sure but soy’s like victor have been letting us know every time an article comes out about an individual trump hotel having some type of struggle.
So which is it victor? Is he enriching himself or is he losing money and you are cheering for that?
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:31 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
I don’t know. But that’s not the point. It’s bad policy to allow conflicts of interest. Our laws to safeguard us against conflicts of interest are too loosely enforced by partisan bodies.
So you don’t know if he’s doing anything wrong but he’s destroying democracy because he possibly could?
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:34 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
A democratic congress and a democratic appointed AG would protect a democratic POTUS and his(or her) appointees.
Trump’s AG allowed an investigation that was founded on the assertion that he peed on hookers in Russia.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:34 pm to BeeFense5
quote:
been letting us know every time an article comes out about an individual trump hotel having some type of struggle.
a) I never did that.
b) Either your dislike of me or your love of Trump is making you defend a poor government policy, a system that allows the ruling party to police themselves. Let’s say Trump is a perfect angel who would never game the system. As a crazy example, he’d never issue guidance to turn a blind eye to Magnitsky Act violations to garner favor with Russian investors. Trump would never do that! Never! Can you be so sure that the next POTUS wouldn’t? Is that a problem that we should fix?
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:38 pm to 3nOut
quote:
So you don’t know if he’s doing anything wrong but he’s destroying democracy because he possibly could?
Enron didn’t know anything was wrong when Jeff Skilling was forming off-balance sheet joint ventures with companies that he owned. Should they have had rules in place to stop it? Uh, yeah.
Putting good policies in place isn’t a condemnation of the people presently in position to violate those policies.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:41 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Putting good policies in place isn’t a condemnation of the people presently in position to violate those policies
No argument. I don’t think anybody here is saying that they don’t want government accountability. After the pissing and moaning during Obama’s presidency on this board, I’d hope they’d scream for it.
The OP asked about actual violations of the constitution, not conjecture of what he could do.
This post was edited on 8/18/19 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:43 pm to victoire sécurisé
I dont think action on these types of seeming conflicts is realistic. If a POTUS were to facilitate some sort of legislation or other official action that would directly (or even indirectly but with only a shady few layers of separation), the whistle would be blown on that before it goes anywhere.
As far as acting in ways to gain favor with potential future business partner, i.e. expecting favor in return at a later time, once no longer in the position of power.....seeing as how no contract for personal gain entered into during the Presidency would be legal, all there is to rely upon then is a gentleman's agreement. And what even just halfway competent businessman is going to risk that?
There's obviously scenarios to contemplate wherein conflicts could be taken advantage of, but in reality it's just next to impossible to get away with.
ETA...Now, brokering favor AFTER one leaves office, utilizing former connections in govt....that's seems to be an issue. But it takes prior good relations with the right people still in power who can make things happen. But I dont see Trump having that kind of thing to wield later, as some other former Presidents perhaps have.
As far as acting in ways to gain favor with potential future business partner, i.e. expecting favor in return at a later time, once no longer in the position of power.....seeing as how no contract for personal gain entered into during the Presidency would be legal, all there is to rely upon then is a gentleman's agreement. And what even just halfway competent businessman is going to risk that?
There's obviously scenarios to contemplate wherein conflicts could be taken advantage of, but in reality it's just next to impossible to get away with.
ETA...Now, brokering favor AFTER one leaves office, utilizing former connections in govt....that's seems to be an issue. But it takes prior good relations with the right people still in power who can make things happen. But I dont see Trump having that kind of thing to wield later, as some other former Presidents perhaps have.
This post was edited on 8/18/19 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:47 pm to davyjones
quote:
As far as acting in ways to gain favor with potential future business partner, i.e. expecting favor in return at a later time, once no longer in the position of power.....seeing as how no contract for personal gain entered into during the Presidency would be legal, all there is to rely upon then is a gentleman's agreement. And what even just halfway competent businessman is going to risk that?
If we’re going by that then we should be able to audit every penny of the president post-office to make sure there were no favors. I’m not saying that as hyperbole.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:53 pm to 3nOut
quote:
If we’re going by that then we should be able to audit every penny of the president post-office to make sure there were no favors. I’m not saying that as hyperbole
This ^
While 0 conflicts would be ideal, it just isn't realistic given the way our Constitution and government is structured.
I'm much more worried about conflicts of interest from career politicians that routinely take money from lobbyists.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 12:57 pm to 3nOut
All I'm doing is making the general argument that it's not the threat that some make it out to be. Go ahead and pass legislation....doesnt bother me. I just believe it's not necessary. I cant even envision what preemptive legislation would even look like. "Cant enrich personal business interests during office." Im sure there's already legislation that covers any such instance.
Id imagine it's been contemplated before at some level and maybe was found to achieve unwanted or unwarranted effects.
Id imagine it's been contemplated before at some level and maybe was found to achieve unwanted or unwarranted effects.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 1:01 pm to BeeFense5
quote:
Examples? by BeeFense5
He's a classic to neutral liberal who the elite Dems took a shite on, so he won the republican nomination and then beat democrats in a fair general election they all thought was guaranteed theirs and ruined their globalist attempt at destroying this country.
Posted on 8/18/19 at 1:02 pm to davyjones
I’m agreeing with you, not arguing.
It’s unenforceable. I have no bad feelings towards the Obama’s outside of bad legislation, and wish them the best but I’m not moronic enough to think that their current wealth wasn’t achieved because he was president. I’m not saying it’s OK, but how do you prove that they couldn’t have gotten that money without the presidency?
It’s unenforceable. I have no bad feelings towards the Obama’s outside of bad legislation, and wish them the best but I’m not moronic enough to think that their current wealth wasn’t achieved because he was president. I’m not saying it’s OK, but how do you prove that they couldn’t have gotten that money without the presidency?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News