• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
billy backstay

Profit and the presidency - He's going down!!

240 posts in this topic

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/08/profit-and-presidency

 

A lawsuit against Donald Trump’s business ties heats up

A watchdog challenges the administration’s narrow reading of the emoluments clause

Democracy in America

Aug 7th 2017

by S.M. | NEW YORK

DONALD TRUMP is finding that it pays to be president. Since last November, prices at his properties have surged: the cheapest cocktail at the Trump International Hotel in Washington is now $24, up from $16. The initiation fee at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida—where he hosts foreign dignitaries—quietly doubled to $200,000 in the weeks before his inauguration. Mr Trump visits his own hotels and golf courses about twice a week, augmenting their visibility. He is vacationing this month at Trump National Bedminster, a golf club in New Jersey where he interviewed potential cabinet members after the election. A new “director of diplomatic sales” has steered Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian bookings away from rival DC hotels to the Trump International. In the words of Mr Trump’s son Eric, the family brand is now ”the hottest it has ever been”.

That may be great news for the Trump Organisation, but America’s constitution seems to frown on a president using his office for personal enrichment at the hands of foreign leaders. In recent months, three lawsuits have been filed accusing Mr Trump of violating conflicts-of-interest standards enshrined in the constitution’s two so-called “emoluments” clauses. According to one rule, presidents may not take any payment but their salary from the federal government or the states. And Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 bars all federal officials from receiving “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever” from a foreign state, unless Congress gives its consent. Maryland and the District of Columbia sued Mr Trump in June, followed closely by nearly 200 members of Congress, who say the president needs their approval before he takes any foreign money.

But the first suit was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a bipartisan watchdog organisation. Two months ago the Trump administration asked the federal court in New York to dismiss CREW’s suit for three reasons: the group lacks standing to sue; the constitution bars a president from being compensated only for an “official” act; and requiring a president to sell off his assets is unconstitutional. On August 4th, CREW responded to these arguments with a brief of its own. It is a persuasive refutation of Mr Trump’s attempt to defend his presidential profiteering.

Perhaps the weakest link in CREW’s original complaint was its claim to standing—a plaintiff’s duty to show that it has suffered an injury worthy of a court’s attention. Pointing to several precedents, the organisation argued that its work policing Mr Trump’s emolumental indiscretions diverted its “time, resources and efforts” away from other items on its agenda, including public officials’ adherence to campaign-finance laws. That may be a bit of a stretch (Mr Trump’s lawyers called it “abstract”).

But since January several hotel owners and restaurateurs have signed on as plaintiffs, providing clearer evidence of how the Trumps’ for-profit enterprises may harm competitors. Among them is Eric Goode, owner of four hotels and many restaurants in New York City. He says his properties, including the Bowery Hotel on the Lower East Side, face a more competitive market now that the power and prestige of the White House lie behind Mr Trump’s businesses. The Bowery is only a 15-minute cab ride from the Trump International Hotel and charges similar room rates, CREW notes. The Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers’ contention that the Bowery is a mere “Four Diamond” hotel while Mr Trump’s is a Five Diamond, CREW says, is irrelevant. The claim that nobody could ever hope to compete with the Trump businesses sounds like Trumpian bravado rather than sound legal reasoning. 

Regarding the interpretation of the emoluments clause, the CREW response is even more convincing. No court has ever teased out exactly what the clauses entail, but Mr Trump’s reading is both ahistorical (ignoring founding-era dictionary definitions of “emolument” as “profit”) and implausibly self-serving. The rules, the DoJ insists, do “not prohibit any company in which the president has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality” but merely bar the most obvious kind of corruption: a foreign government sending the president a cheque for doing them a favour. “The defendant’s novel reading” of the constitution, CREW writes, “would gut a rule aimed at ‘every kind of influence by foreign governments’, allowing those very governments to send massive payments to the president in his ‘private’ capacity, or launder them through his businesses”. That, CREW notes, “is untenable”. When a federal official “receives something of value from a foreign power”, he or she “can be imperceptibly induced to compromise what the constitution insists be his exclusive loyalty: the best interest of the United States of America”.

What can courts can do about Mr Trump’s apparent violations of the constitution? CREW wants a kind of cease-and-desist order: a note to the president telling him to sell his businesses so that when foreign delegations book a block of rooms at Trump hotels and imbibe pricey cocktails, the profit doesn’t boost his net worth or risk encouraging him to favour them on the international stage. The DoJ lawyers point to an 1867 precedent that courts may not “enjoin the president in the performance of his official duties”, but CREW cites several examples to the contrary in more recent decades. And the brief observes that asking Mr Trump to divest himself of business interests does not—or should not!—have anything to do with his duties as president. If Mr Trump’s lawyers mean that taking “foreign and domestic governmental benefits does affect his executive decisions”, the brief says, “that is all the more reason to put an end to it”.

NextThe president haunts the race for governor of Virginia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YAAAWWWWNNNNN!

Another cut n paste. You know we all have access to the interwebs don't you?

If it weren't for Trump you'd still be riding the real estate wave instead of slaving in the tool store posting shit on the company dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Scratchanot said:

YAAAWWWWNNNNN!

Another cut n paste. You know we all have access to the interwebs don't you?

If it weren't for Trump you'd still be riding the real estate wave instead of slaving in the tool store posting shit on the company dime.

And if you had asked for a cite, you'd bitch and moan about that TOO wouldn't you/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a country that was designed to be governed by citizen politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a country that was designed to be governed by citizen politicians.

Another Nothing burger! How many books has Trump written? Oh wait, NONE! Never mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/08/profit-and-presidency

 

A lawsuit against Donald Trump’s business ties heats up

A watchdog challenges the administration’s narrow reading of the emoluments clause

Democracy in America

Aug 7th 2017

by S.M. | NEW YORK

DONALD TRUMP is finding that it pays to be president. Since last November, prices at his properties have surged: the cheapest cocktail at the Trump International Hotel in Washington is now $24, up from $16. The initiation fee at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida—where he hosts foreign dignitaries—quietly doubled to $200,000 in the weeks before his inauguration. Mr Trump visits his own hotels and golf courses about twice a week, augmenting their visibility. He is vacationing this month at Trump National Bedminster, a golf club in New Jersey where he interviewed potential cabinet members after the election. A new “director of diplomatic sales” has steered Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian bookings away from rival DC hotels to the Trump International. In the words of Mr Trump’s son Eric, the family brand is now ”the hottest it has ever been”.

That may be great news for the Trump Organisation, but America’s constitution seems to frown on a president using his office for personal enrichment at the hands of foreign leaders. In recent months, three lawsuits have been filed accusing Mr Trump of violating conflicts-of-interest standards enshrined in the constitution’s two so-called “emoluments” clauses. According to one rule, presidents may not take any payment but their salary from the federal government or the states. And Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 bars all federal officials from receiving “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever” from a foreign state, unless Congress gives its consent. Maryland and the District of Columbia sued Mr Trump in June, followed closely by nearly 200 members of Congress, who say the president needs their approval before he takes any foreign money.

But the first suit was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a bipartisan watchdog organisation. Two months ago the Trump administration asked the federal court in New York to dismiss CREW’s suit for three reasons: the group lacks standing to sue; the constitution bars a president from being compensated only for an “official” act; and requiring a president to sell off his assets is unconstitutional. On August 4th, CREW responded to these arguments with a brief of its own. It is a persuasive refutation of Mr Trump’s attempt to defend his presidential profiteering.

Perhaps the weakest link in CREW’s original complaint was its claim to standing—a plaintiff’s duty to show that it has suffered an injury worthy of a court’s attention. Pointing to several precedents, the organisation argued that its work policing Mr Trump’s emolumental indiscretions diverted its “time, resources and efforts” away from other items on its agenda, including public officials’ adherence to campaign-finance laws. That may be a bit of a stretch (Mr Trump’s lawyers called it “abstract”).

But since January several hotel owners and restaurateurs have signed on as plaintiffs, providing clearer evidence of how the Trumps’ for-profit enterprises may harm competitors. Among them is Eric Goode, owner of four hotels and many restaurants in New York City. He says his properties, including the Bowery Hotel on the Lower East Side, face a more competitive market now that the power and prestige of the White House lie behind Mr Trump’s businesses. The Bowery is only a 15-minute cab ride from the Trump International Hotel and charges similar room rates, CREW notes. The Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers’ contention that the Bowery is a mere “Four Diamond” hotel while Mr Trump’s is a Five Diamond, CREW says, is irrelevant. The claim that nobody could ever hope to compete with the Trump businesses sounds like Trumpian bravado rather than sound legal reasoning. 

Regarding the interpretation of the emoluments clause, the CREW response is even more convincing. No court has ever teased out exactly what the clauses entail, but Mr Trump’s reading is both ahistorical (ignoring founding-era dictionary definitions of “emolument” as “profit”) and implausibly self-serving. The rules, the DoJ insists, do “not prohibit any company in which the president has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality” but merely bar the most obvious kind of corruption: a foreign government sending the president a cheque for doing them a favour. “The defendant’s novel reading” of the constitution, CREW writes, “would gut a rule aimed at ‘every kind of influence by foreign governments’, allowing those very governments to send massive payments to the president in his ‘private’ capacity, or launder them through his businesses”. That, CREW notes, “is untenable”. When a federal official “receives something of value from a foreign power”, he or she “can be imperceptibly induced to compromise what the constitution insists be his exclusive loyalty: the best interest of the United States of America”.

What can courts can do about Mr Trump’s apparent violations of the constitution? CREW wants a kind of cease-and-desist order: a note to the president telling him to sell his businesses so that when foreign delegations book a block of rooms at Trump hotels and imbibe pricey cocktails, the profit doesn’t boost his net worth or risk encouraging him to favour them on the international stage. The DoJ lawyers point to an 1867 precedent that courts may not “enjoin the president in the performance of his official duties”, but CREW cites several examples to the contrary in more recent decades. And the brief observes that asking Mr Trump to divest himself of business interests does not—or should not!—have anything to do with his duties as president. If Mr Trump’s lawyers mean that taking “foreign and domestic governmental benefits does affect his executive decisions”, the brief says, “that is all the more reason to put an end to it”.

NextThe president haunts the race for governor of Virginia

 

You work in a tool store now? I need some parts for Miller 302 Trailblazer welders, and 275 Bobcats..... Got any deals on fuel pumps? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

You work in a tool store now? I need some parts for Miller 303 Trailblazer welders, and 275 Bobcats..... Got any deals on fuel pumps? ;)

6,000 sq. ft Tool Crib at Machine Repair Facility at jet engine factory.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a country that was designed to be governed by citizen politicians.

Why is that any comment other than fawning adoration of the Messiah is immediately met with "Obama" or "Hillary"?

How about addressing the original comment instead of the deflection?  Do you approve or disapprove of the lawsuit and why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Another Nothing burger! How many books has Trump written? Oh wait, NONE! Never mind!

One might ask how many books Gropenfuhrer has read. The answer might well be the same as the number he has written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

6,000 sq. ft Tool Crib at Machine Repair Facility at jet engine factory.  

That's what I thought... A lil' different than walking the floor at the Ace Hardware....:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Why is that any comment other than fawning adoration of the Messiah is immediately met with "Obama" or "Hillary"?

How about addressing the original comment instead of the deflection?  Do you approve or disapprove of the lawsuit and why or why not?

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests

Especially when they use their own properties which he benefits from. Drinks have gone from $16 to $24 since his election. Mar a Fiasco's initiation fees have jumped substantially since his election. If you notice, Trump never stays at a property he doesn't own. Not even a friend's home as Obama did on Nantucket. Believe me dog, you can twist and turn all you want but, the TRUMP MAFIA is making money and it's a pretty steady flow into their pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's pretty hard to take seriously the complaints of the beacon hotel owner

he charges the same price for his rooms, over on broadway and amsterdam, as trumps hotel does on columbus circle

the law suit won't magically move his building closer to central park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:

it's pretty hard to take seriously the complaints of the beacon hotel owner

he charges the same price for his rooms, over on broadway and amsterdam, as trumps hotel does on columbus circle

the law suit won't magically move his building closer to central park

So, having TRUMP Shithouse over the entrance doesn't matter? Right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Especially when they use their own properties which he benefits from. Drinks have gone from $16 to $24 since his election. Mar a Fiasco's initiation fees have jumped substantially since his election. If you notice, Trump never stays at a property he doesn't own. Not even a friend's home as Obama did on Nantucket. Believe me dog, you can twist and turn all you want but, the TRUMP MAFIA is making money and it's a pretty steady flow into their pockets.

I'll stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I'll stay tuned.

So, you're wearing your TIN Hat, good, stay tuned. If I'm correct Rush Limbag is on for three hours every afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

So, you're wearing your TIN Hat, good, stay tuned. If I'm correct Rush Limbag is on for three hours every afternoon.

I'll stay tuned to how the lawsuit plays out. Are you just being an asshole towards me because I'm an immigrant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dog said:

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests.

Al Gore seems to be doing OK and he didn't get the jacket. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Scratchanot said:

Al Gore seems to be doing OK and he didn't get the jacket. :rolleyes:

Sorry, Al Gore never WAS president idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Sorry, Al Gore never WAS president idiot!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just not your clock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just not your clock

Hey, my dog just took a shit on my walkway, come pick it up for your lunch turd, save me the trouble of picking it up. Of course, you didn't address the OP because you can't Turd! SAD!PS and probably scratchy nuts thinks For WAS president; he's a troll, doesn't mean he's a bright troll.

 

Image result for Pick up after your dog signs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests.

I have no doubt you felt that typing "And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election." at the beginning of your reply was meant to focus on the topic of President Trump's successful attempts to enrich himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I have no doubt you felt that typing "And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election." at the beginning of your reply was meant to focus on the topic of President Trump's successful attempts to enrich himself.

You're just questioning my motivations because I'm an immigrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're just questioning my motivations because I'm an immigrant.

Show me one person on the forum who isn't? we all immigrated from somewhere at some time. You ain't that special dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Show me one person on the forum who isn't? we all immigrated from somewhere at some time. You ain't that special dog.

You're not a legal immigrant. You don't understand what its like to be part of an oppressed minority. We're people too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a country that was designed to be governed by citizen politicians.

To foreign governments?

Thia has to be one of  most lane attempts at diversion and defense of your idolized one ever!!! 

Oh wait!! You aren't defending Gropenfuhrer.

You just happened to  post non related  shit about somebody else in a thread wherenitgerscwere discussing potential malfeasance by Gropenfuhrer ... who you would never defend 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

To foreign governments?

Thia has to be one of  most lane attempts at diversion and defense of your idolized one ever!!! 

Oh wait!! You aren't defending Gropenfuhrer.

You just happened to  post non related  shit about somebody else in a thread wherenitgerscwere discussing potential malfeasance by Gropenfuhrer ... who you would never defend 

 

See that... Another attack on me because I'm an immigrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're not a legal immigrant. You don't understand what its like to be part of an oppressed minority. We're people too.

Blame Trump then.,.He's  put you in the position your finding yourself in.Glad you knew English at least and had a job when you came! Isn't that the TRUMP requirement now? Maybe it wasn't when you came though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests.

Nice try at not defending Gropenfuhrer who you maynir nsy not support unconditionally...

the issue is foreign governments booking at his hotel to gain favor 

perhaps a person who has (mortgages Held by the Russian mafia for his )  hotels simply cannot be POTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

See that... Another attack on me because I'm an immigrant.

I have no idea where you were bred nor what breed you are. I also don't care. 

Regatta Dog is a Boston Terrier 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gouvernail said:

I have no idea where you were bred nor what breed you are. I also don't care. 

Regatta Dog is a Boston Terrier 

Immigrant lives matter. Such oppression around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Immigrant lives matter. Such oppression around here.

You are a writer who chooses to post anonymously in these forums. Any claims about our replies to your writings somehow being based upon who you are are absurd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Immigrant lives matter. Such oppression around here.

Does Trump know that or does he even care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

You are a writer who chooses to post anonymously in these forums. Any claims about our replies to your writings somehow being based upon who you are are absurd

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

You are a writer who chooses to post anonymously in these forums. Any claims about our replies to your writings somehow being based upon who you are are absurd

Just trying to establish some victim cred Gov. Everyone's doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Just trying to establish some victim cred Gov. Everyone's doing it.

That "I'm an immigrant and you are picking on me" schtick is sounding a lot like one of Dabs' games.  You're better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumps businesses are obviously profiting from his presidency. Establishing a causal link between his policy objectives and spending at his hotels is a difficult proposition in the courts, given the depth of his legal team. 

This is EXACTLY why the framers decided to put such strict limits on how and why political leaders emoluments from foreign entities. They wanted none, whatsoever. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Trump wants to change the Constitution to fit his business goals. Trumpets (including those on this thread who defend him or invoke Hillary! Obama!) are ok with this Faustian bargain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Trumps businesses are obviously profiting from his presidency. Establishing a causal link between his policy objectives and spending at his hotels is a difficult proposition in the courts, given the depth of his legal team. 

This is EXACTLY why the framers decided to put such strict limits on how and why political leaders emoluments from foreign entities. They wanted none, whatsoever. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Trump wants to change the Constitution to fit his business goals. Trumpets (including those on this thread who defend him or invoke Hillary! Obama!) are ok with this Faustian bargain.  

Ok I get it...In this discussion about emoluments it is only acceptable to discuss Trump's circumstances. Citing  Obama's circumstances amounts to condoning any wrongdoing by Trump. You really can't be fucking serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ok I get it...In this discussion about emoluments it is only acceptable to discuss Trump's circumstances. Citing  Obama's circumstances amounts to condoning any wrongdoing by Trump. You really can't be fucking serious.

What circumstances dog? If he had something that could cause a conflict, he put it in a Blind Trust. Trump makes a big deal over giving his empire to his kids but, he still maintains control. In fact, he can "dip" into the profits anytime he wants. Funny, Trump didn't want to, wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SV Airlie said:

What circumstances dog? If he had something that could cause a conflict, he put it in a blind Trust. Trump makes a big deal over giving his empire to his kids but, he still maintains control. In fact, he can "dip" into the profits anytime he wants.

The circumstance I cited was the effect Obama's election had on his book sales. Now how the fuck is that condoning any misbehavior by Trump. Please tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

The circumstance I cited was the effect Obama's election had on his book sales. Now how the fuck is that condoning any misbehavior by Trump. Please tell me.

Check the dates dog! Published when again?

Dreams from My Father - Wikipedia

It explores events of his early years up until his entry into law school in 1988. Obama published the memoir in July 1995, when he was starting his political campaign for Illinois Senate. He had been elected as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.
Publication date‎: ‎July 18, 1995; August 10, 2004
Author‎: ‎Barack Obama
Publisher‎: ‎Times Books‎ (1995); ‎Three Rivers ...
Pages‎: ‎403 (1995); 442 (2004)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Check the dates dog! Published when again?

Dreams from My Father - Wikipedia

It explores events of his early years up until his entry into law school in 1988. Obama published the memoir in July 1995, when he was starting his political campaign for Illinois Senate. He had been elected as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.
Publication date‎: ‎July 18, 1995; August 10, 2004
Author‎: ‎Barack Obama
Publisher‎: ‎Times Books‎ (1995); ‎Three Rivers ...
Pages‎: ‎403 (1995); 442 (2004)
 

Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

I thought I was addressing the subject. It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests.

 Yawn. More dishonest partisan bullshit from Dog. The head of the Republican party's companys steer business to his personal hotels and you don't give a fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

The circumstance I cited was the effect Obama's election had on his book sales. Now how the fuck is that condoning any misbehavior by Trump. Please tell me.

BECAUSE YOU NEVER SAY A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT DOG! THATS WHY WE CALL IT DOGGYSTYLIN'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The joy of post Hillary lost butthurt is the incessant avoidance by some, of any direct reply for trump actions, proven or implied. One can only ponder about inglorious victors shuffling away from truth to deflect anything regarding the groping 45 ineptfest show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:
44 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Trumps businesses are obviously profiting from his presidency. Establishing a causal link between his policy objectives and spending at his hotels is a difficult proposition in the courts, given the depth of his legal team. 

This is EXACTLY why the framers decided to put such strict limits on how and why political leaders emoluments from foreign entities. They wanted none, whatsoever. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Trump wants to change the Constitution to fit his business goals. Trumpets (including those on this thread who defend him or invoke Hillary! Obama!) are ok with this Faustian bargain.  

Ok I get it...In this discussion about emoluments it is only acceptable to discuss Trump's circumstances. Citing  Obama's circumstances amounts to condoning any wrongdoing by Trump. You really can't be fucking serious.

it's especially easily when philly just makes shit up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 Yawn. More dishonest partisan bullshit from Dog. The head of the Republican party's companys steer business to his personal hotels and you don't give a fuck.

More bullshit from you. If he has broken the law by all means prosecute him, remove him from office. I don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

More bullshit from you. If he has broken the law by all means prosecute him, remove him from office. I don't care.

I challenge you to go one fucking day here without saying "but Obama" "but Hillary" and "but the Democrats"

That Trump and his family have pitched the Presidency as their money making venture isn't bullshit. It's disgusting. The bullshit is you running interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I challenge you to go one fucking day here without saying "but Obama" "but Hillary" and "but the Democrats".

Why.... are they beyond reproach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Your point?

It was published in 1995. Not during his presidency as you'd like to believe;  making money by using his position as president to make money. Doggie! Are you really that thick?If you feel he did and that was your reasoning, how do you justify Trump writing his books and saying his books don't make money. . Again, the chances of writing HIS OWN books are nil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Why.... are they beyond reproach?

Nope.  But, they aren't President nor the majority in either chamber.

In other words, they aren't germane to any political discussion, at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Why.... are they beyond reproach?

Like Trump is to you?

Comeon Dog, you can opine on the merits of the issue without deflecting to the Democrats, can't you? Just for one day? I mean, you aren't a mouth breathing partisan asshole are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Why.... are they beyond reproach?

No, you're just fixated with them and it's your way to deflect from Trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Nope.  But, they aren't President nor the majority in either chamber.

In other words, they aren't germane to any political discussion, at this time.

Really, a politician has to be in office to be discussed here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Like Trump is to you?

Comeon Dog, you can opine on the merits of the issue without deflecting to the Democrats, can't you? Just for one day? I mean, you aren't a mouth breathing partisan asshole are you?

You didn't answer my question. Why is it such a problem for you if I discuss Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Why.... are they beyond reproach?

Just wow... you were not jesting about being an imminent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

It was published in 1995. Not during his presidency as you'd like to believe;  making money by using his position as president to make money. Doggie! Are you really that thick?If you feel he did and that was your reasoning, how do you justify Trump writing his books and saying his books don't make money. . Again, the chances of writing HIS OWN books are nil. 

They were on sale during his presidency, he collected royalties..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Really, a politician has to be in office to be discussed here?

Not saying that and you fucking know it or you should! What other politician, or even a non politician, do you have in your sights Dog? Let me guess, Hillary and OBAMA, anyone else, didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SV Airlie said:

Not saying that and you fucking know it or you should! What other politician, or even a non politician, do you have in your sights Dog? Let me guess, Hillary and OBAMA, anyone else, didn't think so.

Well if I bring up Obama or Hillary these days you guys go ape shit crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Well if I bring up Obama or Hillary these days you guys go ape shit crazy.

No, I think we're tired of it! Too Repetitious to begin with AND you didn't answer my question. I'm guess on purpose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

You didn't answer my question. Why is it such a problem for you if I discuss Obama?

So you can't even go a post without mentioning them? Damn you need attention fido.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Just trying to establish some victim cred Gov. Everyone's doing it.

i thought all immigrants were lefties, which is why Dems want them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

They were on sale during his presidency, he collected royalties..

So, he's making LESS money on them. His royalties would be less and tell me that Trump's books didn't go on sale? Of course, there's another possible reason, Trump's books suck and a lot weren't sold because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

i thought all immigrants were lefties, which is why Dems want them?

You're thinking of trespassers, not immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

You're thinking of trespassers, not immigrants.

Do you really take pleasure making an idiot out of yourself Serious question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're thinking of trespassers, not immigrants.

Thats actually one hell of a point that gets lost on most. The cats that went through the process i think are overwhelmingly righties

someone should poll like eight people so we could get a definitive answer on the subject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Thats actually one hell of a point that gets lost on most. The cats that went through the process i think are overwhelmingly righties

Neither of them can vote, what the fucks your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Thats actually one hell of a point that gets lost on most. The cats that went through the process i think are overwhelmingly righties

someone should poll like eight people so we could get a definitive answer on the subject

Game Show Buzzzz

 

Nope

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/26/heres-a-close-look-at-how-immigrant-voters-could-affect-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.2cf38c5f8038

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dog said:

Really, a politician has to be in office to be discussed here?

It helps if the politician being discussed is germane to the point. You use them as a deflection. 

Sad. Bigly sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Neither of them can vote, what the fucks your point?

So a naturalized citizen cant vote well someone should tell them that.

A green card holder can vote in local and state elections but not federal. Naturalized citizens have the same rights as someone born here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

A green card holder can vote in local and state elections but not federal. 

Uh, no, no they can't in every state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Uh, no, no they can't. At least not in any state I've lived in.

Google is your friend. Actually didnt know that about green card holders either till i looked it up but the people that go through the process and become a citizen have the same rights as you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Turd Sandwich said:

 but the people that go through the process and become a citizen have the same rights as you

well, no, not the same rights. they can't become President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It helps if the politician being discussed is germane to the point. You use them as a deflection. 

Sad. Bigly sad. 

My point, in case you missed it the first time...

"It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

well, no, not the same rights. they can't become President.

well there is that grey area ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Ok I get it...In this discussion about emoluments it is only acceptable to discuss Trump's circumstances. Citing  Obama's circumstances amounts to condoning any wrongdoing by Trump. You really can't be fucking serious.

Obama didn't make $$$ from foreign governments' use of his books.

you simply are not adding to the discussions ... just diverting attention 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gouvernail said:

Obama didn't make $$$ from foreign governments' use of his books.

you simply are not adding to the discussions ... just diverting attention 

Emoluments can come from all manner of sources, not just foreign governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

My point, in case you missed it the first time...

"It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests".

And this discussion has absolutely zero to do with that.

The question  about Gropenfuhrer has to do with the fact he can be paid  by foreign governments simply by those governments booking rooms in his hotels.

 

is it significant?? 

HOw can it not be  considered significant??

if a foreign government books suites in his hotels snd buys lots of drinks and dinners the bill can be in the hundreds of thousands.

as we KNOW Gropenfuhrer puts a whole lot of importance in money, doing business with him certainly , influences him 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

My point, in case you missed it the first time...

"It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests".

So, why didn't you just say that and leave Obama out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, why didn't you just say that and leave Obama out of it?

I use Obama as an example not realizing it was not allowed or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

I use Obama as an example not realizing it was not allowed or something.

Why not use Dubya as your example? Or doesn't he qualify?

 How much money did Dubya make from those books he wrote, and the hotel deals he brokered while in office anyway?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

I use Obama as an example not realizing it was not allowed or something.

Yeah, right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Emoluments can come from all manner of sources, not just foreign governments.

No Shit DOG, is this something you actually figured out all by yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SV Airlie said:

No Shit DOG, is this something you actually figured out all by yourself?

Look asshole...I was correcting Gov. Try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

Why not use Dubya as your example? Or doesn't he qualify?

 How much money did Dubya make from those books he wrote, and the hotel deals he brokered while in office anyway?

 

I could have but I didn't. I used Obama, deal with it. After seeing how it makes you guys go all stupid maybe I'll use Obama more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I could have but I didn't. I used Obama, deal with it. After seeing how it makes you guys go all stupid maybe I'll use Obama more often.

Fine, Obama and Hillary are all ya got? And I guess making a fool out of yourself is your intent and has been all along!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I use Obama as an example not realizing it was not allowed or something.

Maybe in your new country it is. I guess you moved  to La La Land after the Election?? 

They love immigrants like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Turd Sandwich said:

well there is that grey area ha ha

fly that birther flag "independent" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Emoluments can come from all manner of sources, not just foreign governments.

Are you talking emoluments generally or those prohibited by the Constitution?

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I could have but I didn't. I used Obama, deal with it. After seeing how it makes you guys go all stupid maybe I'll use Obama more often.

Go ahead. Give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sean said:

Are you talking emoluments generally or those prohibited by the Constitution?

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

The threads about removing Trump from office for illegally enriching himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the replies supporting Trump attempt to distract from real issues. There was no systemic fraud or bankruptcy in Obama's business background, no basis for concern regarding foreign investment in his myriad properties, no reluctance from American banks to deal with Obama prior to his run for the presidency. No obvious personality defects of the like proudly displayed by the current president. The posters defending Trump by pointing at a book deal made by Obama and handled through reputable (and transparent) trustees is so obviously different from Trump's family collusion and mixing of politics and business it is laughable. 

Almost.

But to me, this defense is tyranny. It is accepting the possible collusion of foreign agents and their representatives in manipulating a US election to further the personal financial goals of self-styled American Royalty. It is saying "Obama did the same thing" when that is so obviously untrue. It is and attempt to gaslight this thread.

Our country is the loser if these responses are acceptable. Dog, Hermetic, I am sorry your patriotism is overshadowed by your party affiliation and loyalty. In my opinion, America does not benefit from the party loyalty you display. Comey refused it, at great personal expense. You've offered it freely. You are incurious to a degree which is harmful, and I charge you with supporting the erosion of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

All the replies supporting Trump attempt to distract from real issues. There was no systemic fraud or bankruptcy in Obama's business background, no basis for concern regarding foreign investment in his myriad properties, no reluctance from American banks to deal with Obama prior to his run for the presidency. No obvious personality defects of the like proudly displayed by the current president. The posters defending Trump by pointing at a book deal made by Obama and handled through reputable (and transparent) trustees is so obviously different from Trump's family collusion and mixing of politics and business it is laughable. 

Almost.

But to me, this defense is tyranny. It is accepting the possible collusion of foreign agents and their representatives in manipulating a US election to further the personal financial goals of self-styled American Royalty. It is saying "Obama did the same thing" when that is so obviously untrue. It is and attempt to gaslight this thread.

Our country is the loser if these responses are acceptable. Dog, Hermetic, I am sorry your patriotism is overshadowed by your party affiliation and loyalty. In my opinion, America does not benefit from the party loyalty you display. Comey refused it, at great personal expense. You've offered it freely. You are incurious to a degree which is harmful, and I charge you with supporting the erosion of democracy.

Nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

All the replies supporting Trump attempt to distract from real issues. There was no systemic fraud or bankruptcy in Obama's business background, no basis for concern regarding foreign investment in his myriad properties, no reluctance from American banks to deal with Obama prior to his run for the presidency. No obvious personality defects of the like proudly displayed by the current president. The posters defending Trump by pointing at a book deal made by Obama and handled through reputable (and transparent) trustees is so obviously different from Trump's family collusion and mixing of politics and business it is laughable. 

Almost.

But to me, this defense is tyranny. It is accepting the possible collusion of foreign agents and their representatives in manipulating a US election to further the personal financial goals of self-styled American Royalty. It is saying "Obama did the same thing" when that is so obviously untrue. It is and attempt to gaslight this thread.

Our country is the loser if these responses are acceptable. Dog, Hermetic, I am sorry your patriotism is overshadowed by your party affiliation and loyalty. In my opinion, America does not benefit from the party loyalty you display. Comey refused it, at great personal expense. You've offered it freely. You are incurious to a degree which is harmful, and I charge you with supporting the erosion of democracy.

Up the thread  I made the following observation with respect to emoluments.

"It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests."  

To illustrate the point I cited the effect Obama's election to the presidency had on his book sales. Now you're telling me that my citing of Obama's circumstances amounts to tyranny and supporting the erosion of democracy. . I have one question for you...Have you completely lost your fucking mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Up the thread  I made the following observation with respect to emoluments.

"It's hard for me to imagine how becoming president would not affect ones personal financial situation particularly if one has business interests."  

To illustrate the point I cited the effect Obama's election to the presidency had on his book sales. Now you're telling me that my citing of Obama's circumstances amounts to tyranny and supporting the erosion of democracy. . I have one question for you...Have you completely lost your fucking mind?

And TRUMP was supposed to give his Trump enterprise to his kids. Made a big deal about doing so to appease everyone. The problem is,Trump can keep all the profits he collect, sorry kids, they're MINE and in actuality has quite a bit of control of them still. He fooled you doggie. Hey doggies, here's a stick as he fakes throwing it and doggie runs off to look for it. And his post you referenced was about TRUMP, not OBAMA if you had copied the entire post and not just the paragraph you wanted to.

 

First you bring up Obama's book deal, that didn't fly very well. I almost look forward for reading your next defense of Trump. It should be really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gropenfuhrer doesn't go down ,,,,

he just grabs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 6:25 AM, Dog said:

And Obama no doubt sold more copies of "Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" as a consequence of his election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a country that was designed to be governed by citizen politicians.

I bought 12 copies of Donalds book since he took office. Didn't everybody?

 

TheArtOfTheDeal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HardOnWind said:

I bought 12 copies of Donalds book since he took office. Didn't everybody?

 

TheArtOfTheDeal.jpg

Trump wrote a BOOK? Hold the presses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0