Trump General Discusion II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, it's real news, just not something I think is particularly valid.



Trump won fair and square on election day guys. It sucks, but like many a smug liberal such as myself said leading up the election, it is incredibly difficult to rig an election.


Yeah, these guys may be wackadoos, but I think they've actually talked to the Clinton campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I mean, it's real news, just not something I think is particularly valid.

Trump won fair and square on election day guys. It sucks, but like many a smug liberal such as myself said leading up the election, it is incredibly difficult to rig an election.

I've read some compelling arguments about the statistical oddity of her losing by JUST enough in all three of those states to warrant further inspection.
 
I've read some compelling arguments about the statistical oddity of her losing by JUST enough in all three of those states to warrant further inspection.

People tend to find what they are looking for, and what arguments support their bias. I have found myself in that trap,
during the W Bush 8 years my hatred of him and Cheney blinded my judgement,
 
Because it is on CNN or in the NYT does not mean it is legit. Calling it fake, may not wash, but often it is not legit.

If a journalist reports that a meeting took place, he is reporting fact and that is not "fake news," even if the content of the meeting was all lies.

Hard to know what you mean with your typical drive-by posting style.
 
I've read some compelling arguments about the statistical oddity of her losing by JUST enough in all three of those states to warrant further inspection.



Agreed, it is really weird. To run the table in states that no one thought were close -- today, Trump said that they only went to Michigan because they heard the Clinton team was having some worries -- forming what has been rightly called the biggest upset in political history stretches credulity. Nothing like this has ever happened before. When the GOP cooked up and implemented their racist voter suppression schemes they never could have imagined they'd work this perfectly.

The alternative might be worse -- a hacked election? What the fuck are the implications of that? And how would we deal with that?
 
If a journalist reports that a meeting took place, he is reporting fact and that is not "fake news," even if the content of the meeting was all lies.

Hard to know what you mean with your typical drive-by posting style.
I ceded the point that fake news would not wash. I consider it not legetimate but part of a concentrated effort to deligitimize Trumps election
 
Trump's NYT "interview" is surreal.

Either he's lying now, or his entire campaign was just a heaping pile of bullshit aimed at getting suckers to vote for him.

I really don't know which I believe to be true.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind

Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, said of his latest comments: “Talk is cheap, and no one should believe Donald Trump means this until he acts upon it. We’re waiting for action, and Trump is kidding nobody on climate as he simultaneously stacks his transition team and cabinet with climate science deniers and the dirtiest hacks the fossil fuel industry can offer. Prove it, president-elect. The world is watching.”
 
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/leaked-newsweeks-recalled-hillary-clinton-madam-president-issue



LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-1_1024x1024.jpg


LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-3_1024x1024.jpg


LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-4_1024x1024.jpg


LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-8_1024x1024.jpg


LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-6_1024x1024.jpg


LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-13_1024x1024.jpg

apart from this being standard editorial practice (you think they can turn that stuff around in minutes after the results?!), THAT is the universe i would like to be living in right now - feels like someone has been messing with a time machine and we've suddenly been diverted to an alternative parallel universe where Biff's Paradise is now Trump's Tower, Farage is his best mate, Boris Johnson is British Foreign Secretary, the Extreme Right is on the rise in Europe, and Neo-Nazis are getting a free pass in the US! where's Doc Brown when you need him? :crack:
 
honestly can't believe how people were fooled by this guy - man of the people yay :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

More than eight million low-income and single-parent families will face sharp tax increases under Donald Trump exacerbating income inequality, experts warn

Under Donald Trump’s proposed tax plan, the most wealthy Americans will receive an average annual tax cut of $215,000.

President Donald Trump is set to give America’s richest 1% an average annual tax cut of $214,000 when he takes office, while more than eight million families with children are expected to suffer financially under his proposed tax plan.

On the eve of the election, Trump promised to “massively cut taxes for the middle class, the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country, who built our country”. But independent expert analyses of Trump’s tax plan show that America’s millionaire and billionaire class will win big at the expense of struggling low- and middle-income people, who turned out in large numbers to help the real estate billionaire win the election.

Experts warn that Trump’s tax plan will exacerbate America’s already chronic income inequality and herald in a “new era of dynastic wealth”.


“The Trump tax plan is heavily, heavily, skewed to the most wealthy, who will receive huge savings,” said Lily Batchelder, a law professor and tax expert at New York University. “At the same time, millions of low-income families – particularly single-parent households – will face an increase.”

Batchelder, who wrote an academic paper on Trump’s tax plan published by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that the president-elect’s plan “significantly raises taxes” for at least 8.5 million families, with “especially large tax increases for working single parents”. More than 26m individuals live in those families.

According to Batchelder’s research Trump’s tax changes – taken at their “most conservative” – could leave just over half of America’s nearly 11m single-parent households facing an increased tax burden. This figure rises to 61% – or 7m households – if the analysis is run on “reasonable assumptions” that the changes Trump has suggested go ahead.

Single-parent families would suffer the most because Trump would lower the minimum of tax-free earnings to $15,000 per adult no matter how many children in the household. Under current law the threshold is $17,400 for single-parent families with one child and $24,750 for a couple with one child, and the threshold increases by $4,050 for each additional child.

Trump also plans to consolidate the current seven tax breaks into three: 12%, 25% and 33%. His plan would scrap the current 10% tax for earnings under $19,625 and replace it with 12%. Trump’s proposed childcare credits would not make up for the changes, according to Batchelder.

Minority families are set to suffer disproportionately from the tax increases, according to Batchelder. With 32% of African American families facing a tax increase compared with 19% of whites, this is mostly due to African American families being more likely to share the burden of childcare within the family and hence not benefit as much from Trump childcare credits. Batchelder said the effective tax increase for many millions of families would run into the thousands.

While the poor will face tax increases, the Tax Policy Center research said the rich would received big tax cuts that get even bigger as you work up the income scale. The top 20% of earners would receive an average annual tax cut of $16,660 compared with an overall average cut of $2,940.

The richest 1% will collect 47% of all the tax cuts – an average saving of $214,000.

The 0.1% – the 117,000 households with incomes of more than $3.7m – would receive an average 2017 tax cut of $1.3m, a nearly 19% drop in tax they were due to pay in 2016. The tax savings of the super-rich will increase further in future, with the 0.1%’s estimated 2025 tax bill to fall by $1.5m.

It is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton’s tax plan, which would have seen taxes rises for the super-wealthy. Under her plan, the top 1% would pay an extra $163,000 a year more on average, and would have made up 93% of all new tax revenue by 2025.

Clinton and Trump promised very different tax plans during the election.

“Listening to Trump’s rhetoric, most Americans probably don’t realise at all the impact of Trump’s tax plan,” Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) said. “Any way you slice it, the very best-off Americans will be the biggest beneficiaries.

“If it looks bad now for middle-income families, those who turned out to vote for him, it’s only likely to get worse [with Trump as president]. It is very likely that they will end up poorer still. The most likely victims are middle- and low-income families.”

Gardner said that under Trump, America will become even more divided between the rich and poor. “America is already very unequal, and his proposals would make income inequality a lot worse,” Gardner said. “This is obviously quite worrisome. If he rode to victory on a middle-income wave of support, those middle Americans will be very disappointed.”


The inequality problem will be exacerbated by Trump’s plan to scrap inheritance tax – which he refers to as “the death tax”. The 40% inheritance tax is currently only charged on personal estate worth more than $5.45m and joint estates of $10.9m – sums so large that it only affects less than two in 1,000 Americans.

Trump has proposed repealing the tax entirely. While Clinton, pushed by Bernie Sanders’ strong stance on the issue, had suggested lowering the threshold to $3.5m and increasing the rate to 65% for the super-wealthy.

“It’s hard to think of a tax change that will have a more detrimental effect on inequality,” Garnder said. “There is no question that this will lead to a perpetual income elite – hardly the thing that Trump voters would have wanted. This will lead to a new era of dynastic wealth.”
 
I've been telling you guys from the very beginning that most of this other stuff is a total distraction and the real game here is the wealthy getting off like bandits for the next 4/8 years. We shouldn't be fooled, it's always about the money.

Most of Trump's supporters are so blinded by their ideologies and so obsessed with placing blame externally (on the Mexicans, the cultural elites, Washington, the media) that they simply have no clue as to what is actually going on. They'll sit and celebrate potentially saving a couple of hundred bucks on their health insurance like fools, completely oblivious to what the top 1% are saving/making/stealing. And maybe that's the key to their happiness, living in ignorance.
 
Nikki Haley as ambassador to the UN. Are we still sure Trump isn't systematically removing internal opponents by appointing them to presidential cabinet positions?
 
Nikki Haley as ambassador to the UN. Are we still sure Trump isn't systematically removing internal opponents by appointing them to presidential cabinet positions?

I breathed a sigh of relief there. As long as Bolton/Giuliani doesn't become Secretary of State, the worst case scenario is averted.
 
I breathed a sigh of relief there. As long as Bolton/Giuliani doesn't become Secretary of State, the worst case scenario is averted.


I dunno. I feel it's really difficult to criticize Trump from within his cabinet. If it's Priebus/Romney/Haley for those respective picks, who from within the Republican Party will criticize Trump and have any power or sway? They'll all work for Trump.

It might seem initially counterintuitive -- putting the biggest baddest ugliest folks in his cabinet seems more preferable to me. Doing what he's doing right now maximizes his power and ability.
 
I dunno. I feel it's really difficult to criticize Trump from within his cabinet. If it's Priebus/Romney/Haley for those respective picks, who from within the Republican Party will criticize Trump and have any power or sway? They'll all work for Trump.

It might seem initially counterintuitive -- putting the biggest baddest ugliest folks in his cabinet seems more preferable to me. Doing what he's doing right now maximizes his power and ability.

I'm ambivalent on this. I mean, Colin Powell was a moderating influence and still went in front of the Security Council with the WMD claims for Iraq, so Presidential power is hard to oppose. At the same time, Haley has political ambitions of her own, and may not be willing to risk it all on behalf of Trump.

It will still be pretty bad for multilateralism. The UN (and US credibility in the organization) is still recovering from the Bush years. But within these parameters, I still prefer a moderate than a crazy radical. The Bolton years were the worst.
 
I dunno. I feel it's really difficult to criticize Trump from within his cabinet. If it's Priebus/Romney/Haley for those respective picks, who from within the Republican Party will criticize Trump and have any power or sway? They'll all work for Trump.


My best guess is that there will be a massive internal fight between what the establishment GOP on the hill wants (Ryan/McConnell who are both just busting at the seams with their newfound control) and Bannon. These two groups have completely opposing views as to policy. Every populist idea held by Bannon is essentially roundly rejected by the likes of Paul Ryan. The whole lot of them together is a recipe for massive dysfunction. The real question is what happens to Trump and what role he plays. He seems to be approaching this as a CEO who is the one and only in charge (ignoring the Board of Directors for a minute) and who is used to delegating to minions and expects them to fall in line. What he doesn't understand is the internal politics of Washington and just how entrenched the bureaucracy is. And that members of Congress would like to use him in the good times but will have no use of him in the bad times. Recall that the Republicans will have massive issues in the 2020 election and so every elected Republican is out there to save his/her own ass first. They will drop Trump like a hot potato as soon as he starts tanking in the polls. I mean they basically pretend that W Bush wasn't one of theirs, goes to show you the extent of their loyalty.
 
I'm ambivalent on this. I mean, Colin Powell was a moderating influence and still went in front of the Security Council with the WMD claims for Iraq, so Presidential power is hard to oppose. At the same time, Haley has political ambitions of her own, and may not be willing to risk it all on behalf of Trump.



It will still be pretty bad for multilateralism. The UN (and US credibility in the organization) is still recovering from the Bush years. But within these parameters, I still prefer a moderate than a crazy radical. The Bolton years were the worst.


Trump himself sees the UN as useless.

Trump also just made the presumptive governor of South Carolina somebody who was a staunch supporter of his. Haley was a big opponent.

I really can't imagine he's done this for any other reason.
 
Having now read the transcript of Trump's comments on climate change in the NYT interview, what the hell were people thinking saying he changed his views? Ok, he doesn't mention the Chinese hoax, but this rhetoric is incredibly frightening (and pure anti-science). He sounds like the uninformed uncle who posts crazy shit on Facebook, only he's the president elect.

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.

[laughter]

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this.

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?
 
We've essentially elected someone with the political, historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge of a comments section on a conservative website. That's really the depth of his knowledge on anything outside of his business sphere.

Good job, rural America.
 
Yuck, the answers on conflict interest are something else. Sorry for posting the whole thing - I'll spoiler tag it.

SHEAR: You’ve talked about the impact of the wind farms on your golf course. People, experts who are lawyers and ethics experts, say that all of that is totally inappropriate, so I guess the question for you is, what do you see as the appropriate structure for keeping those two things separate, and are there any lines that you think you won’t want to cross once you’re in the White House?

TRUMP: O.K. First of all, on countries. I think that countries will not do that to us. I don’t think if they’re run by a person that understands leadership and negotiation they’re in no position to do that to us, no matter what I do. They’re in no position to do that to us, and that won’t happen, but I’m going to take a look at it. A very serious look. I want to also see how much this is costing, you know, what’s the cost to it, and I’ll be talking to you folks in the not-too-distant future about it, having to do with what just took place.

As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that from the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest. That’s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don’t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can’t. And I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they’re very, very successful people. They come in, they’d say, they said, ‘Would it be possible to have a picture?’ Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, ‘I don’t want to have a picture,’ or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it’s wonderful to take a picture. I’m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn’t be good. That wouldn’t be good. But I’d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.

UNKNOWN: That means you’d have to make Ivanka deputy President, you know.

TRUMP: I know, I know, yeah. [room laughs] Well, I couldn’t do that either. I can’t, that can’t work. I can’t do anything, I would never see my, I guess the only son I’d be allowed to see, at least for a little while, would be Barron, because he’s 10. But, but, so there has to be [unintelligible]. It’s a very interesting case.

UNKNOWN: You could sell your company though, right? With all due respect, you could sell your company and then …

TRUMP: Well …

UNKNOWN: And then you could see them all the time.

TRUMP: That’s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate. I have real estate all over the world, which now people are understanding. When I filed my forms with the federal election, people said, ‘Wow that’s really a big company, that’s a big company.’ It really is big, it’s diverse, it’s all over the world. It’s a great company with great assets. I think that, you know, selling real estate isn’t like selling stock. Selling real estate is much different, it’s in a much different world. I’d say this, and I mean this and I said it on “60 Minutes” the other night: My company is so unimportant to me relative to what I’m doing, ’cause I don’t need money, I don’t need anything, and by the way, I’m very under-leveraged, I have a very small percentage of my money in debt, very very small percentage of my money in debt, in fact, banks have said ‘We’d like to loan you money, we’d like to give you any amount of money.’ I’ve been there before, I’ve had it both ways, I’ve been over-levered, I’ve been under-levered and, especially as you get older, under-levered is much better.

UNKNOWN: Mr. President-elect …

TRUMP: Just a minute, because it’s an important question. I don’t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and, I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? I’m not going to talk to you, I’m not going to take pictures? You have to, you know, on a human basis, you take pictures. But I just want to say that I am given the right to do something so important in terms of so many of the issues we discussed, in terms of health care, in terms of so many different things. I don’t care about my company. It doesn’t matter. My kids run it. They’ll say I have a conflict because we just opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, so every time somebody stays at that hotel, if they stay because I’m president, I guess you could say it’s a conflict of interest. It’s a conflict of interest, but again, I’m not going to have anything to do with the hotel, and they may very well. I mean it could be that occupancy at that hotel will be because, psychologically, occupancy at that hotel will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before, O.K.? The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can’t help that, but I don’t care. I said on “60 Minutes”: I don’t care. Because it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters to me is running our country.

MICHAEL BARBARO, political reporter: Mr. President-elect, can I press you a little further on what structures you would put in place to keep the presidency and the company separate and to avoid things that, for example, were reported in The Times in the past 24 hours about meeting with leaders of Brexit about wind farms …


Graphic: Donald Trump Is Choosing His Cabinet. Here’s the Latest Shortlist.
TRUMP: About meeting with who?

BARBARO: Leaders of Brexit about wind farms that might interfere with the views of your golf course and how to keep, what structures, can you talk about that meeting, by the way?

TRUMP: Was I involved with the wind farms recently? Or, not that I know of. I mean, I have a problem with wind …

BARBARO: But you brought it up in the meeting, didn’t you?

TRUMP: Which meeting? I don’t know. I might have.

BARBARO: With leaders of Brexit.

MANY VOICES: With Farage.

TRUMP: Oh, I see. I might have brought it up. But not having to do with me, just I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we’re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don’t work. I don’t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they’re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they’re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I’ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn’t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don’t. But it’s hard to explain. I don’t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.

BARBARO: But the structures, just to be clear, that’s the question. How do you formalize the separation of these things so that there is not a question of whether or not you as president …

TRUMP: O.K.

BARBARO: … are trying to influence something, like wind farms?

TRUMP: O.K., I don’t want to influence anything, because it’s not that, it’s not that important to me. It’s hard to explain.

BARBARO: Yes, but the structures?

TRUMP: Now, according to the law, see I figured there’s something where you put something in this massive trust and there’s also — nothing is written. In other words, in theory, I can be president of the United States and run my business 100 percent, sign checks on my business, which I am phasing out of very rapidly, you know, I sign checks, I’m the old-fashioned type. I like to sign checks so I know what is going on as opposed to pressing a computer button, boom, and thousands of checks are automatically sent. It keeps, it tells me what’s going on a little bit and it tells contractors that I’m watching. But I am phasing that out now, and handing that to Eric Trump and Don Trump and Ivanka Trump for the most part, and some of my executives, so that’s happening right now.

But in theory I could run my business perfectly, and then run the country perfectly. And there’s never been a case like this where somebody’s had, like, if you look at other people of wealth, they didn’t have this kind of asset and this kind of wealth, frankly. It’s just a different thing.

But there is no — I assumed that you’d have to set up some type of trust or whatever and you know. And I was actually a little bit surprised to see it. So in theory I don’t have to do anything. But I would like to do something. I would like to try and formalize something, because I don’t care about my business.

Doral is going to run very nice. We own this incredible place in Miami. We own many incredible places, including Turnberry, I guess you heard. There’s one guy that does — when I say Turnberry, you know what that is, right. Do a little [inaudible]. But they’re going to run well, we have good managers, they’re going to run really well.

So I don’t have to do anything, but I want to do something if I can. If there is something.



It's astounding. This should be covered in the front page of every newspaper until he decides to sell the company.

It's almost funny that he says that "the president can't have a conflict of interest", "it's been reported everywhere". The guy still bases his decisions on what is being reported, and not on, you know, proper legal counsel.
 
Last edited:
Nikki Haley as ambassador to the UN. Are we still sure Trump isn't systematically removing internal opponents by appointing them to presidential cabinet positions?


Keep your friends close and your nevertrumpers closer.(Haley, Romney) Also paves the way for Lt. Gov McMasters to take over as governor. Seems like a reward for being one of the first endorsers of Trump


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
And looooooool for the anti-elitist saying this about Bannon:

I’ve known him for a long time. He’s a very, very smart guy. I think he was with Goldman Sachs on top of everything else.

#conned
 
Keep your friends close and your nevertrumpers closer.(Haley, Romney) Also paves the way for Lt. Gov McMasters to take over as governor. Seems like a reward for being one of the first endorsers of Trump


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Right, so I'm not crazy in thinking that his was a move to "reward" him and effectively place her out of the way..

This worries me as much as anything else. I don't like the systematic elimination of opposition.
 
Right, so I'm not crazy in thinking that his was a move to "reward" him and effectively place her out of the way..

This worries me as much as anything else. I don't like the systematic elimination of opposition.


Haley didn't have to accept, but she did to raise her profile. Perhaps a non zero sum moment in which all parties benefit. Trump deflects criticism of naming white males to his cabinet by naming a Sikh heritage female to a position. All 3 parties are happy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Haley didn't have to accept, but she did to raise her profile. Perhaps a non zero sum moment in which all parties benefit. Trump deflects criticism of naming white males to his cabinet by naming a Sikh heritage female to a position. All 3 parties are happy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


She didn't have to accept. Maybe she's doing herself a service. Maybe she's walking into a trap. Ulterior motives don't care about a shortsighted consenting deal.

Also, I wish Haley could just be getting the role because she's qualified, not because she's a Sikh-American female. That much... people from both sides still can't seem to grasp.
 
Obama had/has many less qualified appointments based on what seems to be diversity over qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Trump deflects criticism of naming white males to his cabinet by naming a Sikh heritage female to a position. All 3 parties are happy.

I am in favor of diversity when things are equal or close to equal. I do prefer diversity. I want to believe of the names on the list, she gets the job based on qualifications considered first. And I am not naive enough to believe that when looking at qualifications, many times, when things being equal, a white male gets the job.

That is why I have always supported affirmative action in the past,
Quotas is a different proposition and less creditable where qualifications are important.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom