Trump on United States Constitution - "Phony"

[SoCal Deek]

The most misunderstood business term thrown around these days is “profit”. Just because someone is running a non-profit organization doesn’t mean they’re not fleecing their clients. It just means they’ve worked the math so that their salary consumes every dollar they charge so that at the of the year there’s no money left over to distribute as ‘profits’.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

There is the technical distinction that these are not for profit entities. These aren’t entities that can put money back directly into the pockets of these politicians via simple and direct business transactions. Now I am sure there are back channel ways to funnel money to these people via these foundations (although not for profits are heavily regulated so there is at least some level of scrutiny) but there is a vast difference from a president openly running a business where you can openly bribe them unlimited amounts of money directly to a president having a not for profit foundation designed to do charity work. 

 

All true -- but haven't we seen enough the past decade to understand that there are two tiers to our justice system? One for us and one for "them"? Do you really think the CF is on the up and up? Or do you think the hundreds of millions pouring into it while she was running for office was blatant quid pro quo?

 

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I also don’t defend the notion that if those foundations are corrupt those people should have been thrown out of office.

 

Apologies, I was not trying to state that you do believe that at all.  

 

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

I don’t get your “Well everybody does it” argument here. For one this isn’t the same thing as a business but even setting aside the technical different I don’t care to defend any pol’s use of a foundation. You either care about corruption or you don’t. You aren’t arguing in good faith if you think people criticizing Trump for these corrupt dealings as don’t have an issue with general corruption using those types of foundations. 

 

My point is that the people who care about Trump's "corruption" (which I disagree it is) have never cared about the corruption of the establishment. In fact, many of the journalists making waves on this issue actively helped cover up massive corruption for decades of establishment figures because they're all on the same team. 

 

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

Making everything into a partisan issue to obfuscate from corrupt behavior is you working backwards from your conclusion that Trump is good and great in everything he does. 

 

My position is not that though. I didn't vote for Trump. He's made plenty of mistakes. What he's not though is corrupt. This was proven with the three years of invasive investigations designed to find any crime/corruption he ever committed... and they found zip. Zero. Zilch. 

 

Is he a braggart and bloviator? Yup. Is he harsh and childish? Yup. Does he punch down? You betcha. 

 

But he's clean. At least in comparison to those who are loudly shouting he's corrupt. 

 

Nancy Pelosi is worth 220 million dollars -- do you think she made all that legally on a 150k yearly salary while in office her entire adult life? 

Clinton came into office broke, left a millionaire. 

Obama came into the office nearly broke, left a millionaire. 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[billsfan89]

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

All true -- but haven't we seen enough the past decade to understand that there are two tiers to our justice system? One for us and one for "them"? Do you really think the CF is on the up and up? Or do you think the hundreds of millions pouring into it while she was running for office was blatant quid pro quo?

 

 

Apologies, I was not trying to state that you do believe that at all.  

 

 

My point is that the people who care about Trump's "corruption" (which I disagree it is) have never cared about the corruption of the establishment. In fact, many of the journalists making waves on this issue actively helped cover up massive corruption for decades of establishment figures because they're all on the same team. 

 

 

My position is not that though. I didn't vote for Trump. He's made plenty of mistakes. What he's not though is corrupt. This was proven with the three years of invasive investigations designed to find any crime/corruption he ever committed... and they found zip. Zero. Zilch. 

 

Is he a braggart and bloviator? Yup. Is he harsh and childish? Yup. Does he punch down? You betcha. 

 

But he's clean. At least in comparison to those who are loudly shouting he's corrupt. 

 

Nancy Pelosi is worth 220 million dollars -- do you think she made all that legally on a 150k yearly salary while in office her entire adult life? 

Clinton came into office broke, left a millionaire. 

Obama came into the office nearly broke, left a millionaire. 

 

 

 

Corruption is a huge issue in America and I don't think the scope is limited to just Trump. But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't corrupt. I don't understand how you can't think Trump is corrupt. There are numerous examples of foreign entities doing business at Trump businesses and then Trump doing a lot of favors for those companies. For example the Saudi government repeatedly books massive blocks of hotel rooms at his properties (linked below to one example) and he vetos legislation to stop arming them for the genocide in Yemen. The Russia Gate investigation was non-sense but the real case against Trump being corrupt is him using his office to funnel business to his own businesses. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html

[billsfan89]

37 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The most misunderstood business term thrown around these days is “profit”. Just because someone is running a non-profit organization doesn’t mean they’re not fleecing their clients. It just means they’ve worked the math so that their salary consumes every dollar they charge so that at the of the year there’s no money left over to distribute as ‘profits’.

 

As someone who worked in a not for profit it is a bit more complicated than simply not making money. You have to distribute at least 65% of the money into program costs while only 35% of the money can be used on administration and fundraising (most of the more legitimate charities will have a self imposed 75% threshold.) What is considered a program cost (or costs that actually go to the cause that the charity is being funded) is highly regulated as you can't say anyones salary is a program cost. 

 

So for example if you run a cancer research non-profit you can't say that a consultant or an administrator is part of your program costs. Those types of costs can't exceed 35% of your total costs or you are in violation of the law and you lose you tax exempt status. Now the money you put towards a research grant would qualify under a program cost. 

 

So you aren't just obligated to not have profits it is a model based on distributing money. Now I am sure there are ways that the Clinton Foundation and other non-profits have skirted this system. But in general your assessment of how non-profits work is not accurate. 

[SoCal Deek]

Corruption is getting your son a job on a board with zero knowledge in the industry.

 

Corruption is not recommending that  a conference being held a facility that clearly intended to hold such an event. 

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

As someone who worked in a not for profit it is a bit more complicated than simply not making money. You have to distribute at least 65% of the money into program costs while only 35% of the money can be used on administration and fundraising (most of the more legitimate charities will have a self imposed 75% threshold.) What is considered a program cost (or costs that actually go to the cause that the charity is being funded) is highly regulated as you can't say anyones salary is a program cost. 

 

So for example if you run a cancer research non-profit you can't say that a consultant or an administrator is part of your program costs. Those types of costs can't exceed 35% of your total costs or you are in violation of the law and you lose you tax exempt status. Now the money you put towards a research grant would qualify under a program cost. 

 

So you aren't just obligated to not have profits it is a model based on distributing money. Now I am sure there are ways that the Clinton Foundation and other non-profits have skirted this system. But in general your assessment of how non-profits work is not accurate. 

There are plenty of ways around those rules...and you know it.  But the important part of my post is the general misunderstanding of what ‘profits’ are in any business. 

[3rdnlng]

The Clinton Foundation hired people that Hillary would need for future campaigns. Part of its utility was to keep her people around.

[Rob's House]

7 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

Article I, Section 9

 

"You people with this phony Emoluments Clause" - Donald Trump

 

 

 

 

Dude, if you truly think your beliefs are correct and the truth is on your side, why is everything you post dishonest?

Edited October 22, 2019 by Rob's House

[billsfan89]

20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Corruption is getting your son a job on a board with zero knowledge in the industry.

 

Corruption is not recommending that  a conference being held a facility that clearly intended to hold such an event. 

There are plenty of ways around those rules...and you know it.  But the important part of my post is the general misunderstanding of what ‘profits’ are in any business. 

 

Corruption is hosting an event at a venue to which you stand to profit or gain from hosting it there, to think "at cost" exists in this situation is hilarious. Corruption is vetoing a Congressional override of a weapons deal for a country that just so happens to put a lot of money into buying hotel rooms that no one stays at. Corruption is also leveraging your political office to get your son a lucrative job. You can think both things are corruption. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Corruption is hosting an event at a venue to which you stand to profit or gain from hosting it there, to think "at cost" exists in this situation is hilarious. Corruption is vetoing a Congressional override of a weapons deal for a country that just so happens to put a lot of money into buying hotel rooms that no one stays at. Corruption is also leveraging your political office to get your son a lucrative job. You can think both things are corruption. 

Corruption is going nuts at the mere suggestion of cutting foreign aid to a country which is immediately turned into big defense contracts whose owners are donating to your campaign. 

[dubs]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Corruption is hosting an event at a venue to which you stand to profit or gain from hosting it there, to think "at cost" exists in this situation is hilarious. Corruption is vetoing a Congressional override of a weapons deal for a country that just so happens to put a lot of money into buying hotel rooms that no one stays at. Corruption is also leveraging your political office to get your son a lucrative job. You can think both things are corruption. 

if trump is trying to do corruption like that, he’s definitely doing it wrong. Most people don’t do corruption wide out in the open for what you are asserting amounts to be a little more than a cup of coffee in value relative to his worth. 

[Rob's House]

31 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Corruption is hosting an event at a venue to which you stand to profit or gain from hosting it there, to think "at cost" exists in this situation is hilarious. Corruption is vetoing a Congressional override of a weapons deal for a country that just so happens to put a lot of money into buying hotel rooms that no one stays at. Corruption is also leveraging your political office to get your son a lucrative job. You can think both things are corruption. 

 

The selective application of these standards renders them meaningless. When the Clinton Foundation is raking in millions from foreign donors (clearly paying for access) and rather than call for Hillary's head, or even dig deeper into the facts, one turns a blind eye and actively disclaims the need to investigate or even question the propriety of this arrangement, but then when Trump hosts an event at his establishment they're up in arms over corruption, they have no credibility.

 

They're not interested in truth, justice, order, transparency, or ferreting out corruption. They are only interested in seeing Democrats in power. There is nothing honest or virtuous about any of it. It's as dirty and deceptive as politics gets.

 

What's really grating isn't the politicians or pundits that play this game. They're on the team and in the game. It's the average shmoe who thinks he's on the team and shills for it. The former are dangerous while the latter appear merely pathetic. However, the pathetic ones enable the dangerous ones.

 

If you're truly concerned with corruption and government stability look at the hacks who are constantly attempting to undermine and abuse our legal framework to reach the political ends they cannot achieve through legitimate political means.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Corruption is a huge issue in America and I don't think the scope is limited to just Trump. But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't corrupt. I don't understand how you can't think Trump is corrupt. There are numerous examples of foreign entities doing business at Trump businesses and then Trump doing a lot of favors for those companies. For example the Saudi government repeatedly books massive blocks of hotel rooms at his properties (linked below to one example) and he vetos legislation to stop arming them for the genocide in Yemen. The Russia Gate investigation was non-sense but the real case against Trump being corrupt is him using his office to funnel business to his own businesses. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html

 

Trump is a bit of a unique situation given that he has all these businesses and now that he's President, LOTS of people want to visit one of his properties even if just to have a drink in the bar because - TRUMP.  Your linked article states that the Trump org paid the US Treasury $150K which the Trump org states is profit derived from groups of foreign diplomats staying at his properties.  That sure seems like an effort to negate the benefits of this extra and potentially conflicted biz.  Also, the sale of arms to SA has been ongoing and started long before Trump was President.  Seems like he is simply continuing the policy of his predecessor and that of other countries that continue to sell arms to SA. 

 

We'll see how the lawsuits come out but seems like the government has a weak case to me. 

[Tiberius]

11 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

The selective application of these standards renders them meaningless. When the Clinton Foundation is raking in millions from foreign donors (clearly paying for access) and rather than call for Hillary's head, or even dig deeper into the facts, one turns a blind eye and actively disclaims the need to investigate or even question the propriety of this arrangement, but then when Trump hosts an event at his establishment they're up in arms over corruption, they have no credibility.

 

They're not interested in truth, justice, order, transparency, or ferreting out corruption. They are only interested in seeing Democrats in power. There is nothing honest or virtuous about any of it. It's as dirty and deceptive as politics gets.

 

What's really grating isn't the politicians or pundits that play this game. They're on the team and in the game. It's the average shmoe who thinks he's on the team and shills for it. The former are dangerous while the latter appear merely pathetic. However, the pathetic ones enable the dangerous ones.

 

If you're truly concerned with corruption and government stability look at the hacks who are constantly attempting to undermine and abuse our legal framework to reach the political ends they cannot achieve through legitimate political means.

The right wing media just makes up fake scandals so that when they are caught red handed like Trump was, they can throw out fake whataboutisms 

 

Anyone that thinks the House Republicans would not have gone after Hillary for ANYTHING she did is just an idiot. Heck, they had to

make up the stand down order just to find something. 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The right wing media just makes up fake scandals so that when they are caught red handed like Trump was, they can throw out fake whataboutisms 

 

Anyone that thinks the House Republicans would not have gone after Hillary for ANYTHING she did is just an idiot. Heck, they had to

make up the stand down order just to find something. 

Wait until Hillary has to explain to the public why her foundation received 150 million from Russian connected people after the Uranium deal went through. I wonder if "what difference does it make now" will work for her?

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Wait until Hillary has to explain to the public why her foundation received 150 million from Russian connected people after the Uranium deal went through. I wonder if "what difference does it make now" will work for her?

Fake news. 

 

Trump is a Russia puppet you dope 

[Chef Jim]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The right wing media just makes up fake scandals so that when they are caught red handed like Trump was, they can throw out fake whataboutisms 

 

Anyone that thinks the House Republicans would not have gone after Hillary for ANYTHING she did is just an idiot. Heck, they had to

make up the stand down order just to find something. 

The house Republicans would likely have gone after Hillary if she was the President. Guess what?  She’s not. She lost. Twice!  ?????

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

The house Republicans would likely have gone after Hillary if she was the President. Guess what?  She’s not. She lost. Twice!  ?????

And you know all about losing, don't you? 

 

You our guys gave us the most corrupt, incompetent president in history. That's actually a loss for you clowns, 

 

there, I made your day by actually responding to you. Enjoy, I won't again today. FU sh it head 

[Warren Zevon]

12 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

Dude, if you truly think your beliefs are correct and the truth is on your side, why is everything you post dishonest?

 

"You people with this phony Emoluments Clause" - Donald Trump

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Tiberius said:

And you know all about losing, don't you? 

 

You our guys gave us the most corrupt, incompetent president in history. That's actually a loss for you clowns, 

 

there, I made your day by actually responding to you. Enjoy, I won't again today. FU sh it head 

if you have no rebuttals other than rude childish insults typically means you have no response.  So why do you even bother?  You just continually expose your immature nature. Sad.  

[Rob's House]

2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

"You people with this phony Emoluments Clause" - Donald Trump

 

Your application of the emoluments clause is phony. You've just vindicated President Trump. Congrats.