How many of you still admit to supporting the Clown, Trump?

Oh, and dsapsis, no, Trump is NOT breaking with tradition. He's not doing what recent Presidents have, back to Carter. I wonder, BTW, why you just happened to choose Carter as that "stopping point". Who was a notable President elected prior to Carter? Oh, yeah. Kennedy. Hmmmm.... That's right - Kennedy was pretty poor, raised in a log cabin in Nebraska that didn't even have running water, eh? Oh, and even the founding fathers and the Presidents for the first 100 years of the country were very wealthy, and none of them divested their holdings or wealth.

It's funny how "selective" people can be about what constitutes "tradition", isn't it? How that "tradition" is "selectively" made up only of Presidents who primarily were public servants rather than business tycoons in your description? And I'm using the term "public servant" very loosely given the fact that I don't consider Obama even to be that. Obama was an activist - not even a politician. Reagan and the Bush dad and son certainly had business ties, but both had already been politicians for some time prior to even running for office. Of course, so had Kennedy, but as we know he just doesn't fit that narrative so he's not part of that "long standing tradition", is he?

 

FBI just admitted to wiretapping Trump tower.

I don't really dabble in the dungeon. I think it's Pretty funny he was right about that, but the FBI says it wasn't for him.

 

This seems to be your general rhetorical approach -- the opposing position has no basis for argument, despite it being presented a number of times. Lovely.
I maintain again, that if a person such as you describe is to become president, a couple viable solutions are on the table.

1. To make good effort to dissociate their holdings into a true blind trust, and prioritize divestments of the most obvious and egregious conflicts (like with other nations, to start. You have not provided any actual evidence approaching your claim about dominant and disinterested opinions to support that this does "nothing", nor that divestment is "impossible". Interestingly, though, you have raised costs. What Trump has done meets your good effort apparently; it doesn't meet mine, nor, dare I say, that of actual presidential ethicists.

2. Seek Congressional approval as called for in the constitution.

(3.) A constitutional Amendment clearly prescribing the president to have authority run dealings in private while also tending the business of state.

No, but nice straw man.
Look, you know as well as I that a billionaire with a different disposition than Trump, if elected president, would likely pursue a more rigorous approach to mitigating conficts of interest. Business and the presidency are a bit of oil and water, and need to be treated as so.

Carry on.

 

Intimate confidant of a number of billionaires are we?

 

I've seen it estimated, and have no trouble believing, that it would take Trump more than 4 years to divest himself of his holdings.

 

No, that's simply a dishonest statement. I'm calling you out for bitching, and suggesting solutions that are bullshit. With factual reasons behind the description of them being bullshit. Reasons that have quite frankly been discussed by people with far more intimate legal knowledge than you or I.

More specifically, I agree that this is a tricky situation. I just think (along with a lot of other people) that your "solutions" are meaningless, impractical, unrealistic, ineffective, and illegal.

I actually have provided explicit reasoning as to why the Blind Trust is meaningless. You simply choose to stick your head in the ground, your fingers in your ears, and cry "no - no - no". Again - and pretend this is written with crayons - A blind trust does not prevent Trump from knowing that his organization being "managed" by disinterested parties owns property with his friggin name on the top of the building in specific locations. It's not like city blocks pick up and move somewhere else, is it? Is there some sort of magic pixie dust that changes this?

Furthermore, we've talked about the divestment issue. The problem is that you again either just plain don't comprehend it or you've never in your life been involved with any real M&A or divestiture action for a global entity. So, it's either hypocrisy or ignorance. I can only use those terms because we've been through this time after time, and you have refused to acknowledge this. And, as for the "actual presidential ethicists" - that's as specious a statement is is your claim of "tradition".

Wrong again, bucko. Nobody apparently but you now is asking for the president to have authority to "run dealings in private".

No, we don't know this. I have not the slightest idea what THIS president will do, much less what any other one would. And if you were actually being honest rather than allowing your own obvious bias intrude on this, you would know this too.

I agree with your concerns over the very large holdings Trump has. I'm not very "comfortable" with it. I'm not "dismissing" it. I AM dismissing the suggesting you've made because they are clearly IMHO bullshit.

 

Everything that anyone in the Trump family does these days is examined and reported-on to death, so I'm not that worried about nefarious business dealings happening in the shadows. I expect there will be hundreds of lawsuits filed over business dealings the Trumps have, no matter how open and transparent. The allegations of wrongdoing are the effective part, as far as the left is concerned.
Where are all those Russians they've been investigating? I'm not seeing much in the way of results.

 

We need a 'dis'like button option...

 

Many of us have also alluded to you having nothing to critique about on the Clinton net worth.......what, no "history of dirty dealings" there I guess? "Apparently [that] isn't a concern of yours" ???

 

This is just it. Any reasonable person would understand this and specifically in his case it's basically an impossibility for him to do so.
Nevermind that he was elected by the people with full knowledge of the breadth of his wealth.
No other POTUS in history divested from their own interest. In fact, the two prior to Trump even used their POTUS position to individually benefit themselves to the tune of $ millions.
But now libs have such great concern over Trumps businesses (that he built without being POTUS) and any possible COI.
Why the concern now, when they never had any befor.
Lib logic once again.

 

Nonsense.

Trump has to fire sale everything he owns. It's for the children. And by children, I mean the bedwetting hysteria prone on the left.

 

I know the generals didn't say it. IRRC Obama dismissed several generals for not agreeing with his policy on how to handle the WOT.

 

Fikthd.

 

I have not said that. What I did say is that putting all his assets under the control of his children isn't good enough (for me).

I am open to some disinterested analysis. You making claims and distortions of what I have said, not so much.