Trump has made my political science students skeptical — of the Constitution

[hislegacy]

You clearly didn’t read the article. It doesn’t claim divestment is required by the constitution. That’s the point! Students are skeptical of the constitution because it hasn’t been able to safeguard us by requiring that Trump divest from his companies, among other reasons.

And your answer is a deflection. Removing yourself as a decision maker in a company is not divesting. Your links do not show that Trump divested from his companies.

Not running the companies, not having an active role in the companies, receiving limited information from the companies is divesting.

I did indeed read the article. Did you listen to the link I provided

The man has no say and no control of the companies.


di·vest
/dəˈvest,dīˈvest/
verb

1. deprive (someone) of power, rights, or possessions.

The man has no power in the companies.

 

[Sparagmos]

Not running the companies, not having an active role in the companies, receiving limited information from the companies is divesting.

I did indeed read the article. Did you listen to the link I provided

The man has no say and no control of the companies.


di·vest
/dəˈvest,dīˈvest/
verb

1. deprive (someone) of power, rights, or possessions.

The man has no power in the companies.

I did watch the video. Trump is still invested in those companies. You only posted one of the definitions of divestment, that you think fits your understanding. You are just continuing to demonstrate that you don’t understand what divestment means in this context. From Wikipedia: “In finance and economics, divestment or divestiture is the reduction of some kind of asset for financial, ethical, or political objectives or sale of an existing business by a firm. A divestment is the opposite of an investment.”

Regardless of your understanding of the word, the issue being raised is that Trump still profits from his companies because he is still invested in them. And that is legal, which is a concern for people. Pointing out that it is legal, or that Trump is not in “power” in his companies, is irrelevant to the OP.

Did you read the article yet?

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is an issue with him using his own money?

There is when you're trying to make the argument that he doesn't have any conflicts of interest. Though he's not president of those companies, he still owns them; his family still runs them; his family still reports their status to him; and can still draw income from them.

You talked about "all he went through" - and the reality is that he didn't go through much.

 

[hislegacy]

I did watch the video. Trump is still invested in those companies. You only posted one of the definitions of divestment, that you think fits your understanding. You are just continuing to demonstrate that you don’t understand what divestment means in this context. From Wikipedia: “In finance and economics, divestment or divestiture is the reduction of some kind of asset for financial, ethical, or political objectives or sale of an existing business by a firm. A divestment is the opposite of an investment.”

Regardless of your understanding of the word, the issue being raised is that Trump still profits from his companies because he is still invested in them. And that is legal, which is a concern for people. Pointing out that it is legal, or that Trump is not in “power” in his companies, is irrelevant to the OP.

Did you read the article yet?

There is when you're trying to make the argument that he doesn't have any conflicts of interest. Though he's not president of those companies, he still owns them; his family still runs them; his family still reports their status to him; and can still draw income from them.

You talked about "all he went through" - and the reality is that he didn't go through much.

Excellent example of how powerful the media narrative has become.

Completely ignore that he wasn’t required, but voluntarily divested himself of all company control and decisions and pound that conflict of interest narrative to death.

Yet virtual silence on Biden’s son traveling to China with the then Vice President. Having the Vice President negotiate with principles in their government and it all ending with his son securing a more than 1 billion dollar business deal.

What a crock of pickles

 

[hislegacy]

I did indeed read the article. Did you listen to the link I provided

Did you read the article yet?

Need me to state it again?

 

[bhsmte]

“Yet students wonder whether the president’s failure to divest himself of various investments has specifically invited such corruption. And they wonder how Americans might even discover evidence of such corruption, given his concealment of his financial records, even after Congress has demanded it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...itution/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe0381e29fa8

The kids get it.

You could likely find flaws with many past presidents and strict adherence to the constitution.

IMO, the failure is more in regards to the congress, who tend to fail miserably in proper oversight.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Excellent example of how powerful the media narrative has become.

Completely ignore that he wasn’t required, but voluntarily divested himself of all company control and decisions and pound that conflict of interest narrative to death.

The fact that he's not legally required to do any of it doesn't eliminate the conflict of interest.

He's still president; he still owns and profits from the companies; he still influences policies that impact their profitability; he still directs government travel that causes government agencies to pay him for lodgings. Permissible or not, that's still a conflict of interest.

But again, you were trying to argue that he did a bunch of stuff to separate himself from his companies, when he didn't. He handed control to his kids, who still report back to him. And he still gets paid.

Yet virtual silence on Biden’s son traveling to China with the then Vice President. Having the Vice President negotiate with principles in their government and it all ending with his son securing a more than 1 billion dollar business deal.

I'm fine with Biden being investigated and, if anything comes of it, punished accordingly. But I'm certainly not going to take your word, or Trump's, or Hannity's, or any of the other dishonest right-wing pundits that there was anything wrong with what was done.

 

[hislegacy]

The fact that he's not legally required to do any of it doesn't eliminate the conflict of interest.

Name one: Verified and sustained conflict of interest between the President and any business entity or for that matter country. Not a theory, not an accusation, but substantiated with verifiable facts.

He's still president; he still owns and profits from the companies; he still influences policies that impact their profitability;

That is demonstratively false in that he has no management nor leadership role in the companies anymore as proven in my previous posts. Maybe you should have listen to the link.

As President he has influenced policies that have effected the profitability of companies on a global level. Pointing to just companies that he holds stock or ownership in is disingenuous and patently a very weak argument.

he still directs government travel that causes government agencies to pay him for lodgings. Permissible or not, that's still a conflict of interest.

Again, another great media byline, but little more in my opinion. Mar Largo is the President's home in Florida, he has every right to go there. The fees paid for his security detail do NOT go to the President, but to the company he no longer has control or leadership over.

As for the OP, if this class is really questioning our constitution over this one media inspired issue, then they should change majors and go do something else. Pointing out this one piece of drama in comparison to the volumes in the constitution are (IMHO), a complete waste of time and energy. It is a waste of their education dollars.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Here are some interesting articles related to Trump and his businesses while president:

Watchdog group: Trump had over 1,400 conflicts of interest in first two years

President Trump and his businesses: Conflicts still exist, probes loom

 

[iluvatar5150]

Name one: Verified and sustained conflict of interest between the President and any business entity or for that matter country. Not a theory, not an accusation, but substantiated with verifiable facts.

His trips to Trump properties line his own pockets when the secret service and other government agencies have to rent rooms for their staff.

Secret Service paid Mar-a-Lago at least $63,000, documents show

That is demonstratively false in that he has no management nor leadership role in the companies anymore as proven in my previous posts. Maybe you should have listen to the link.

"Policies that impact their profitability" refers to government policies, not business practices.

As President he has influenced policies that have effected the profitability of companies on a global level.

So first I'm wrong and now I'm right. Gotcha.

Pointing to just companies that he holds stock or ownership in is disingenuous and patently a very weak argument.

Conflict of interest doesn't have to exclusively benefit the person in question. They can benefit other people, too, though real estate developers did get some special perks in the tax law.

GOP tax cut includes $67 billion in carve-outs for real estate developers
How Loopholes Help Trump and Other Real Estate Moguls Avoid Taxes

Again, another great media byline, but little more in my opinion. Mar Largo is the President's home in Florida, he has every right to go there.

I never said he didn't have the right to go there. But Turnberry isn't his home, nor are several of his other properties that he visits regularly and where the government still pays to rent space from him. That's a textbook conflict of interest.

The fees paid for his security detail do NOT go to the President, but to the company he no longer has control or leadership over.

Yes, the money does go to the president. He still owns the properties and their profits go into a trust which - as the prior links have already pointed out - he can tap at any time.

 

[hislegacy]

Here are some interesting articles related to Trump and his businesses while president:

Watchdog group: Trump had over 1,400 conflicts of interest in first two years

President Trump and his businesses: Conflicts still exist, probes loom

And yet, not one is charged - not one is sustained - not one is being spoken of by all the Democratic Leadership calling for his impeachment. Why? It would be the perfect basis for impeachment.

When will we stop looking at media as accurate and honest?

 

[hislegacy]

His trips to Trump properties line his own pockets when the secret service and other government agencies have to rent rooms for their staff.

Secret Service paid Mar-a-Lago at least $63,000, documents show​

Where can they go to stay without paying rent? And the rent was Paid to the resort - not the President.

I own McDonald's stock - When Mr. Obama had lunch at McDonald's - was he lining my pocket?

 

[FreeinChrist]

And yet, not one is charged - not one is sustained - not one is being spoken of by all the Democratic Leadership calling for his impeachment. Why? It would be the perfect basis for impeachment.

No one is charged?

How many Russians are charged? Where is Manafort now?
Again, Mueller respected the DOJ opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted. As for his impeachment, desire to do so is growing. Pelosi is aware that the Republican controlled Senate will not say guilty out to protect the party. She would rather see Trump defeated in an election then face charges as a non-president.

One deceives himself if they think the lack of impeachment at this point means the end of any charges. Trump is still an unnamed co-conspirator for the crime Cohen is in jail for. Obstruction can still be charged after he leaves office.

When will we stop looking at media as accurate and honest?

I haven't seen most conservative outlets as accurate and honest for a long time.

But much of the other is.


In regards to conflicts of interest issues, there is a lawsuit.

 

[iluvatar5150]

His trips to Trump properties line his own pockets when the secret service and other government agencies have to rent rooms for their staff.

Secret Service paid Mar-a-Lago at least $63,000, documents show​

Where can they go to stay without paying rent?

They have to pay rent anywhere they go. However, they (and the president) don't have to stay at a Trump property, nor do they have to stay at them so frequently.

And the rent was Paid to the resort - not the President.

You're straining credulity so hard here that you're flirting with blatant dishonesty.

The president owns the resort. The whole thing.

I own McDonald's stock - When Mr. Obama had lunch at McDonald's - was he lining my pocket?

In a very small way, yes. However, if you owned the franchise - or better, if you owned a standalone restaurant that Obama visited, then yes, he would've been lining your pockets. If Obama had owned a restaurant and directed that the White House Christmas party be held there, then he would've been guilty of lining his own pockets.

Trump owns the Trump properties. When the Trump properties get paid, he gets paid. Trump visits to Trump properties line Trump's pockets with taxpayer money.

 

[FreeinChrist]

His trips to Trump properties line his own pockets when the secret service and other government agencies have to rent rooms for their staff.

Secret Service paid Mar-a-Lago at least $63,000, documents show​

Where can they go to stay without paying rent? And the rent was Paid to the resort - not the President.

I own McDonald's stock - When Mr. Obama had lunch at McDonald's - was he lining my pocket?

That article is from 2017.

Trump's Golfing Has Cost Taxpayers $100 Million — and Some Money Goes to His Businesses: Report

Each of his trips to Mari-lago cost the taxpayers about $3.4 mil each.
Then there is the Bedsford locations.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That article is from 2017.

Trump's Golfing Has Cost Taxpayers $100 Million — and Some Money Goes to His Businesses: Report

Each of his trips to Mari-lago cost the taxpayers about $3.4 mil each.
Then there is the Bedsford locations.

To be fair, that was the link I provided - he's quoting me there without the usual quote box. It was the first one I found that clearly illustrated my point.

 

[Sparagmos]

Need me to state it again?

So what is your response to the article?

 

[rambot]

How is this:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3404759/DJT-Resignation-Signature-Page-With-Exhibit-a.pdf

Starting at 33:33 for ease of reference

Thank you for this great opportunity, I look forward to your unbiased input.

Thank you. For real. I appreciate this; a FACT based response with evidence. When I have a minute or a bunch (more likely tonight than now), I'll take a look at all this.

In the meantime, I should assuage you of the idea that I, or you, are responsible for providing unbiased input. We have opinions on this topic so we need to present them. We present evidence that will support our position and you should do the same for yours. Our evidence should be as unbiased as reasonably possible. At the same time, we cannot deny evidence just because we disagree with it (or it doesn't fit our opinion).

 

[Sparagmos]

Mar Largo is the President's home in Florida, he has every right to go there. The fees paid for his security detail do NOT go to the President, but to the company he no longer has control or leadership over.

Does he profit from his and his security detail’s stay there?

 

[Fantine]

His legacy, I admire your capacity to trust a man who has been documented as a liar well over 10,000 times.

I lost my faith, TBT, the first time I heard him speak.

Some of those lies really hurt people.

That factory jobs were coming back..
That the ACA would be replaced by something better (biggest whopper.)
That tax cuts were for the middle class and that companies would use them to create jobs (95% returned to stock owners.)