Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1969799101102

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Wesley J wrote: »
    The Washington Post has this:
    Trump has awarded G-7 summit to his Miami-area resort, the White House says. - That decision will bring hundreds of diplomats, media and security personnel to President Trump’s financially struggling resort — where profits fell 70 percent after he entered politics.

    I thought it was illegal to support your own personal business interests as POTUS? Just saying... again.

    But, But, But

    He is offering the resort "at cost." He is not making any profit.

    Of course, "at cost" means he is undercutting any other resort.

    It also means his resort will be getting a lot of free publicity.

    I am thinking some of the other resorts may sue to stop the G-7 gathering @ Trumpland.


  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am thinking some of the other resorts may sue to stop the G-7 gathering @ Trumpland.
    I'm hoping the delegations from other countries choose to stay elsewhere.

    What I'm really hoping is that the owner of the Doral will no longer be POTUS by then!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    The Washington Post has this:
    Trump has awarded G-7 summit to his Miami-area resort, the White House says. - That decision will bring hundreds of diplomats, media and security personnel to President Trump’s financially struggling resort — where profits fell 70 percent after he entered politics.

    I thought it was illegal to support your own personal business interests as POTUS? Just saying... again.

    But, But, But

    He is offering the resort "at cost." He is not making any profit.

    Of course, "at cost" means he is undercutting any other resort.

    It also means his resort will be getting a lot of free publicity.

    I am thinking some of the other resorts may sue to stop the G-7 gathering @ Trumpland.


    I seem to remember a story about a Trump property loading up 'costs' for another Govt function involving an open bar. 'At cost' is a highly flexible idea.

  • Also: T has a hotel down the street from the White House. Foreign visitors to T have stayed there, hoping specifically to curry his favor. Some time back, there was also news that he was pulling other financially beneficial to him crap at the same hotel.

    Besides his greed, narcissism, and conning the country, I wonder how bad his finances actually are. He's never disclose as president or candidate. But there were news rumblings that he wasn't nearly as rich as he said, nor as good at business deals.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    SMH???

    "Shaking My Head"

    Sorry -- I thought it was well-known.

    TY. NTM.

    (Thank you. Not to me.)
  • If his Presidency is anything to go by, he is really crap at business.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Didn’t we know this already?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    We did. We knew it well before the election. Trump University: fraudulent and out of business. Trump Air: fini. Trump Casinos: imploded. Trump steaks, Trump wine: kapooie. Think about that: the entire point of any casino is to remove cash from marks customers' wallets and stash it in the casino's. How the hell does a casino lose money? 5 or 6 bankruptcies. Boatloads of lawsuits. Unpaid debts. Even his hotels & Towers are crap, though apparently they stay afloat. The food at the restaurants is reviewed as mediocre; hotel stays are reviewed as nothing special (aside from cost). He's all brand, no product.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    But, But, But

    He is offering the resort "at cost." He is not making any profit.

    Of course, "at cost" means he is undercutting any other resort.

    It also means his resort will be getting a lot of free publicity.

    I am thinking some of the other resorts may sue to stop the G-7 gathering @ Trumpland.

    I seem to remember a story about a Trump property loading up 'costs' for another Govt function involving an open bar. 'At cost' is a highly flexible idea.

    Surely you're not suggesting that a company with the reputation of the Trump Organization would cook the books?
    Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

    <snip>

    There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    This seems like an almost "performance art" level of metanarrative.
    A couple hundred Donald Trump fans rallied outside Congress on Thursday for the “March for Trump,” an event meant to oppose House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. According to organizers, though, there would have been hundreds more people shouting “stop the coup” in Washington’s streets if not for a liberal plot against their buses.

    That’s because, as would-be rally attendees gathered across the East Coast for the US Coachways buses that the organizer had promised would take them to Washington, those buses never showed.

    The no-shows provoked a wave of anger, accusations that the “deep state” had colluded to stop a show of Trump support in Washington, and negative reviews aimed at US Coachways.

    But US Coachways has a simpler explanation for what happened — it was never paid for the requested buses due to a series of declined credit card payments.

    “We want to get people down there,” Joseph Heap, US Coachways’ chief marketing officer, told The Daily Beast. “But unfortunately, payment is required.”

    A rally in support of notorious deadbeat Donald Trump runs aground because the organizers are a bunch of deadbeats who try to get something without paying for it. What are the odds?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Of course, it's also possible there really weren't enough subscribers to fill multiple buses from multiple cities, and that cause organizers to chicken out on the deal . . .
  • oh that Bus story is an absolute cack.
  • Regarding the G-7 accommodations: Choosing Doral to be the winner from among ten places. You couldn't get a 5 yr old kid to believe that. Did a blindfolded Evanka plunge her hand into a bag containing 9 marbles and 1 golf ball? "O Daddy! YOU WON!"
    Did the govmint put out requests for 'bids' (applications) for hosting the thing? I don't think so.
    What's wrong with Camp David? It seems up-to-snuff in security, and probably does NOT need a total make-over. It would be a lot more pleasant in June than Miami FL.
    Just a side note: Bedbugs will soon be put onto the Endangered Species List. This will protect visiting royalty from the annoying odor of insecticides if forced to stay at the Trump rag-tag resort. And one last thing. I think I heard that our Repubican Presinut will have a book signing event @ the G-7. His long-awaited memoire entitled "The Smell of Money".
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    ... What's wrong with Camp David? It seems up-to-snuff in security, and probably does NOT need a total make-over ...
    Do you mean that Trumpsville-on Sea (or whatever it's called) does need a makeover? How very convenient - he can get the taxpayer to foot the bill ...

    What a devious, cheating piece of effluent he is.
  • "Trump drops plan to host G-7 at Doral" (AP via Yahoo).


    Someone must have heard we were displeased! :)

    Oh, and Camp David is on the alt list.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I'd love to know what it was that changed what passes for his mind. It presumably wasn't a sudden fit of conscience - he hasn't got one.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    I don't remember much about the Watergate hearings. I was living in International House at the University of Chicago. I sometimes returned from campus and walked past the huge lounge where a vast number of foreign students were sitting, watching the hearings and laughing at great length. (What? A third rate burglary and nobody got killed? What's all the fuss?)
  • Pearl B4 SwinePearl B4 Swine Shipmate
    edited October 23
    Ohher wrote: »
    . How the hell does a casino lose money?

    Maybe the ladies employed @ The Casino make too high a salary, whilst attending to the marks-er...customers, and then when the owner/operator of said casino, who has become "famous" is confronted with a few ladies who demand hush money---- the cash on hand goes not to paying bills or utilities or debts, and the bank accounts get emptied pretty fast.

    Just a thought. This explanation doesn't include the art of dipping into money in accounts that really don't belong to the owner/operator, but to John and Joanne Taxpayer.

    Corrected quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    How the hell does a casino lose money?
    Someone was watching The Producers?

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    How the hell does a casino lose money?
    Someone was watching The Producers?

    Cute. But bear in mind that in the film, the problems emerged because the sure-fire tax loss made money.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It seems to me the only way a casino can loose money is through lack of punters or financial indiscretions. POTUS is certainly not the great business man he pretends to be, so maybe both
  • How you lose money on a casino: AIUI, Trump’s gold-plated imitation Taj Mahal was so staggeringly expensive to build that he never recouped his costs from the actual punters.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Staggeringly expensive to build, possibly . . . but as he's well-known for not paying his contractors, decorators, designers, etc. such costs as he might have had to recoup were likely considerably reduced.
  • Was it something like he was spending money like a drunk at the races on all sorts of projects and his bankers didn't like what they saw and called in his loans when a recession hit. They did some sort of deal where he became an employee and spruiked for them, but everybody else got stiffed? I saw a show on it a few years ago, but memory is a fickle beast.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Had to look up "spruiked." Great word. While spruiking is pretty much The Don's only stock in trade, I have a hard time imagining him agreeing to slither into the role of "employee." Of course, he could be inveigled into this through simply failing to grasp the nature of the re-set relationship.
  • Cool word. Yes, very much fits him. Used to do that sort of thing on a professional wrestling show. I don't know how fans and those involved felt, but he was probably a lot happier there.
  • Am I the only person who thinks Trump blabbing* about the "phoney emoluments clause" is breaking his oath of office?

    *auto-correct kept trying to change it to "grabbing". :smiley:
  • Well, probably the "preserve, protect, and defend" bit. Actually violating the emoluments clause, which he well may have done, is worse.
  • *auto-correct kept trying to change it to "grabbing". :smiley:
    Your auto-correct must be familiar with Mr. Trump.
    :lol:

  • Am I the only person who thinks Trump blabbing* about the "phoney emoluments clause" is breaking his oath of office?

    *auto-correct kept trying to change it to "grabbing". :smiley:

    very good point.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I got this copy of Bill Taylor's deposition. From a Washington Post link so I'm not sure if it remains behind a pay wall.

    I am not sure how it was challenged at the closed sitting but on the face of it the deposition provides conclusive evidence of Presidential abuse of power and therefore grounds for impeachment. It is worth a read if you haven't already done so.
  • edited October 23
    That's a powerful statement, Barnabas. It pulls one up short to realise how surprising it is to read a solid, believable public statement with no apparent 'side' from a public servant at the moment, especially where the trajectory of the piece appears to run counter to the immediate interests of the writer's own party-political affiliation.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    If POTUS committed a regular crime could he be taken to court?
    The Queen cannot be tried in court she has to be tried in the House of Lords.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    If POTUS committed a regular crime could he be taken to court?
    The Queen cannot be tried in court she has to be tried in the House of Lords.

    No; the Justice Dept. says a sitting President cannot be charged with criminal activity. He can be impeached by the House, then tried by the Senate, and then removed from office. Once removed, he can be charged with a "regular crime."
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    So if POTUS robbed a bank he would have to be impeached first. Have I understood correctly? If so Trump has a whole lot of trouble waiting for him.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    That's my understanding, and yes, 45'll fight hard to remain in office since he's trying to avoid jail. Pence, if/when he takes over, could presumably pardon the Don's federal crimes, but New York state has charges awaiting which are not subject to such pardons.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    No; the Justice Dept. says a sitting President cannot be charged with criminal activity. He can be impeached by the House, then tried by the Senate, and then removed from office. Once removed, he can be charged with a "regular crime."

    Two twists on this. The first is that, as Ohher noted, this isn’t really a law per se, it’s from a legal memo written by Justice Department lawyers and has never been tested in court. Of course since it’s the Justice Department that would have to bring federal charges . . .

    The other point is that the memo only covers federal criminal charges. States are not bound by this Justice Department memo and could conceivably criminally charge a sitting president.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    On this very subject the Trump administration* is in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals this morning arguing that not just the president but also his family and business associates are immune not just from prosecution but investigation. If you’re reading this before 10:30 am EDT and like watching oral arguments you can watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyMvIRLgeY
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    On this very subject the Trump administration* is in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals this morning arguing that not just the president but also his family and business associates are immune not just from prosecution but investigation. If you’re reading this before 10:30 am EDT and like watching oral arguments you can watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyMvIRLgeY

    Wow. That seems . . . a bit of a stretch. Is 45 now Hierophant as well as Emperor? Communing with him invokes some Sacred Seal? Descent from his loins confers sanctity-by-proxy?

    Wouldn't this completely remove the executive branch from any kind of oversight by anybody, especially Congress? Someone please assure me this bullshit has no chance of working.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Wouldn't this completely remove the executive branch from any kind of oversight by anybody, especially Congress? Someone please assure me this bullshit has no chance of working.

    The reason it's at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is because the District Court of the Southern District of New York was highly unimpressed [PDF] by the Trump legal team's assertions. The Second Circuit is likely to be equally unimpressed. If the case gets taken up by the Supreme Court, who know how they'll decide given the recent addition of Snarly McFratboy to their ranks? He seems much more likely to endorse theories of complete executive impunity than someone like Anthony Kennedy.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    If POTUS committed a regular crime could he be taken to court?
    The Queen cannot be tried in court she has to be tried in the House of Lords.

    Not even they: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Kingdom
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I stand corrected
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Oops.
    Late in the evening on Oct. 16, Rudy Giuliani made a phone call to this reporter.

    <snip>

    Giuliani can be heard discussing overseas dealings and lamenting the need for cash, though it's difficult to discern the full context of the conversation.

    The call appeared to be one of the most unfortunate of faux pas: what is known, in casual parlance, as a butt dial.

    And it wasn’t the first time it had happened.

    "Only the best people" will never not be funny. But I'm sure everything is on the up and up with the president*'s personal attorney, right?
    “Is Robert around?” Giuliani asks.

    “He’s in Turkey,” the man responds.

    Giuliani replies instantly. “The problem is we need some money.”

    The two men then go silent. Nine seconds pass. No word is spoken. Then Giuliani chimes in again.

    “We need a few hundred thousand,” he says.

    It’s unclear what the two men were talking about. But Giuliani is known to have worked closely with a Robert who has ties to Turkey.

    His name is Robert Mangas, and he’s a lawyer at the firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as a registered agent of the Turkish government.

    Giuliani himself was employed by Greenberg Traurig until about May 2018.

    <snip>

    Mangas did not return a request for comment.

    Giuliani’s conversation partner can be heard responding to the "few hundred thousand" comment. But it’s possible to make out only the beginning of his answer, and even that is somewhat garbled.

    “I’d say even if Bahrain could get, I’m not sure how good [unintelligible words] with his people,” the man says.

    “Yeah, okay,” Giuliani says.

    This really is Stupid Watergate, with the part of Martha Mitchell being played by Rudolph Giuliani apparently.
  • Yikes!

    I've thought, for a long time, that all we really need to do is just get these people talking--to an audience (1 person or more), with some recording device present. Get them when they're scared, angry, or narcissistic. Especially true with T.

    Or texting and tweeting.

    Now, if Giuliani's phone would just slip out of his pocket somewhere...unlocked...and someone find it, and feel the need to turn it in to the FBI, or a reporter...or put the contents on YouTube...
  • Addendum: I hope someone is keeping T, Giuliani, and other minions on suicide watch. Seriously.

    Because if they finally figure out how much trouble they're in, and realize their public destruction is on the horizon...that's the kind of situation where some people decide to "exit".

    I'm NOT wishing for that. I really don't want them dead.

    Nor do I want the explosive chaos that would result if someone--especially T--decided to exit.
    (:votive:)
  • If they find Giuliani swinging from the fan of his hotel room I don't think anyone will believe it's a suicide.

    Which reminds me... things have been pretty quiet about the Epstein case.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Which reminds me... things have been pretty quiet about the Epstein case.

    My guess is he's still rotting in his grave.

    Speaking of folks who haven't been in the media eye as much recently, Maria Butina was released from prison today and will be deported back to Russia.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Which reminds me... things have been pretty quiet about the Epstein case.

    My guess is he's still rotting in his grave.

    Because the issue was entirely about him.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Which reminds me... things have been pretty quiet about the Epstein case.

    My guess is he's still rotting in his grave.

    Because the issue was entirely about him.

    Hey, you're the one who referred to it as "the Epstein case", referencing both a specific individual and a particular legal proceeding. Maybe if you wanted to refer to the wider implications of Epstein's alleged orchestration of an underage sex ring for the rich and powerful you should find a term that doesn't reduce it to "the Epstein case".
Sign In or Register to comment.