Trump and emoluments thread

[T.Lex]

If something is not a legal requirement, I see no point in aquiescing to a demand that will settle nothing. And labeling what you want him to do "the right thing" doesn't make it so, it merely begs the question

It will settle, at some level, whether POTUS is acting for his own benefit.

Perhaps the other side of the issue should authoritatively get together and produce a list of demands, with the inducement that satisfying them would end all future questioning by politicians and the press about Trump's finances. That you know that's impossible to deliver should tell you why I wouldn't bother

I think anything that would "end all future questioning by politicians and the press" is a fundamentally bad deal to begin with. And, steps toward .... authoritarianism.

 

[BugI02]

But if you were attempting to make the case of why Trump should bother doing something he is not required to do, I don't think it would even settle the question of whether POTUS was acting for his own benefit? So, again what's the point. If the point is so some vocal people can feel mollified, how is that not virtue signaling?




Authoritarianism = View attachment 64624

 

[T.Lex]

But if you were attempting to make the case of why Trump should bother doing something he is not required to do, I don't think it would even settle the question of whether POTUS was acting for his own benefit? So, again what's the point. If the point is so some vocal people can feel mollified, how is that not virtue signaling?

Again, do you think actually being virtuous is the same as virtue signalling?

 

[Trigger Time]

Ok so it looks like these aren't going to be for sale to the public right?
If that's the case then I'm ok with them just being used by the clubs

 

[printcraft]

Ok so it looks like these aren't going to be for sale to the public right?
If that's the case then I'm ok with them just being used by the clubs

This ^^^^^^

Not for profit, No problem. OR totally for Charity (as long as it isn't the Trump Foundation)

 

[BugI02]

Again, do you think actually being virtuous is the same as virtue signalling?

No, but I don't see the question as germane. He is not doing this freely and immediately, so it's too late to see it as virtuous behavior. Thus, were he to do it belatedly I would argue it would thus be signaling

The case could be made that continuing to insist upon it is more about winning. What would you personally hope for this to accomplish? Would it make you incrementally less ashamed/appalled by Trump (please give the units used to measure any such increment and its numeric value)

 

[T.Lex]

Ok so it looks like these aren't going to be for sale to the public right?
If that's the case then I'm ok with them just being used by the clubs

This ^^^^^^

Not for profit, No problem. OR totally for Charity (as long as it isn't the Trump Foundation)

Wouldn't that be a kick in the head?!

I think there's the marketing angle, though. We don't know (at least I don't) how many were being ordered, so it I don't think we can rule out a gift shop memorabilia play here.

But, even if it isn't that, it could still be marketing the golf course by presidential endorsement. That's still a really uncomfortable thing for me. Particularly when it directly benefits his own bank account.

I'm FAR more comfortable with the USMC getting a trickle of revenue for licensing their emblem(s). Ultimately, that either defrays the cost of stuff that taxpayers would be on the hook for, or it provides some extras for the marines out there. I'm totally fine with that.

This is fundamentally different.

 

[T.Lex]

No, but I don't see the question as germane. He is not doing this freely and immediately, so it's too late to see it as virtuous behavior. Thus, were he to do it belatedly I would argue it would thus be signaling

The case could be made that continuing to insist upon it is more about winning. What would you personally hope for this to accomplish? Would it make you incrementally less ashamed/appalled by Trump (please give the units used to measure any such increment and its numeric value)

It is about trust.

Under the current arrangement I have VERY little trust that he's acting for the best interest of the nation above his own personal interests. In fact, I'll admit that I think this whole POTUS thing has been, and continues to be, an exercise in personal wealth accumulation for him and his family, more than anything else.

So, taking the relatively simple step of removing that, even partially, from the balance of interests would make me more trusting of him.

But, as many point out here, I'm really not that important.

 

[BugI02]

It is about trust.

Under the current arrangement I have VERY little trust that he's acting for the best interest of the nation above his own personal interests. In fact, I'll admit that I think this whole POTUS thing has been, and continues to be, an exercise in personal wealth accumulation for him and his family, more than anything else.

[I could swear I read a reply to a post in another thread where you said you weren't totally cynical about the Trump presidency(yet) ]

So, taking the relatively simple step of removing that, even partially, from the balance of interests would make me more trusting of him.

But, as many point out here, I'm really not that important.

Honestly, Lex? Trump putting his interests in a blind trust would make you more trusting of him? Again I find myself wondering about increments and price to value ratios

I'm personally in agreement with Marcus Tullius Cicero and to some extent John Henry Newman in this. But I'm not Trump (luckily)

 

[T.Lex]

Honestly, Lex? Trump putting his interests in a blind trust would make you more trusting of him?

Yes.

Again I find myself wondering about increments and price to value ratios

Well, everyone should have a hobby.

 

[BugI02]

To put it more succinctly, could the change in your trust of Trump such action would (you attest) bring about be meaningfully quantified by modern technology. The cost is high, it would be right to expect a commensurate benefit

 

[T.Lex]

To put it more succinctly, could the change in your trust of Trump such action would (you attest) bring about be meaningfully quantified by modern technology. The cost is high, it would be right to expect a commensurate benefit

No, it wouldn't.

Virtue is its own reward.

Tell me - do you trust Trump to put the country before his own interests?

 

[Trigger Time]

It is about trust.

Under the current arrangement I have VERY little trust that he's acting for the best interest of the nation above his own personal interests. In fact, I'll admit that I think this whole POTUS thing has been, and continues to be, an exercise in personal wealth accumulation for him and his family, more than anything else.

So, taking the relatively simple step of removing that, even partially, from the balance of interests would make me more trusting of him.

But, as many point out here, I'm really not that important.

Well his name is on the buildings and clubs so I think it's obvious the president owns them and that some people will choose to be there for that reason and others will not do business there for that reason so I believe that issue is canceled out

 

[Expat]

But a more basic question is whether a POTUS should be "allowed" to profit from simply being POTUS, while they are POTUS. .

You mean like writing books, giving speeches, etc>?

 

[BugI02]

No, it wouldn't.

Virtue is its own reward.

Tell me - do you trust Trump to put the country before his own interests?

For me, manifestly, he already has the day he rode that escalator. Even if you choose the lowest estimates of his net worth, he didn't/doesn't need to personally enrich himself off the presidency

I would like to know who tipped off Icahn, though. Since everybody wants to make it that tariffs weren't discussed by Trump with anyone on his staff, that he just did it because he was angry; is Icahn's market move a coincidence?

 

[T.Lex]

Well his name is on the buildings and clubs so I think it's obvious the president owns them and that some people will choose to be there for that reason and others will not do business there for that reason so I believe that issue is canceled out

Absolutely. I mean, if it says "Trump" there's going to be a magnetic element to it. Some people will be drawn in, others repelled.

For me, putting the POTUS seal... making that part of the marketing... is wrong.

You mean like writing books, giving speeches, etc>?

I said "while they are POTUS." I guess I should clarify that campaigning is part of it. So, speaking at a fundraiser is part of the job. But, ostensibly, that money goes to the campaign, not the candidate personally.

Generally, POTUS shouldn't have time to write for-profit books or take honoraria for speaking as POTUS.

After, sure. A girl's gotta make a living.

 

[BugI02]

I will admit to being unable to fathom what drives the truly wealthy, though. If you had just a billion under investment, you could spend over 11 million per day and never touch the principal (using the 4% figure common in normal retirement planning, likely at that level of wealth you could do substantially better)

On a personal level, it would be difficult to conceive a need for more than 5 million under investment; for anybody of almost any lifestyle it seems hard to imagine a need for over 200 million. What drives people to keep going beyond that eludes me, so I can't rule out that Trump wants more, more, more but it's hard to believe he didn't know he was way better off, personal wealth-wise, as a private citizen than as President

 

[T.Lex]

For me, manifestly, he already has the day he rode that escalator. Even if you choose the lowest estimates of his net worth, he didn't/doesn't need to personally enrich himself off the presidency

I would like to know who tipped off Icahn, though. Since everybody wants to make it that tariffs weren't discussed by Trump with anyone on his staff, that he just did it because he was angry; is Icahn's market move a coincidence?

Did you answer the question? I can't derive it from the quote, and I'm reluctant to infer too much.

Do you trust Trump, now (as opposed to when you voted for him), to put the interests of the country before his own?

With regard to Icahn, I can imagine (pardon the play on words) that he made the move based on the totality of Trump's campaigning - before and after he was elected. Trump's been pretty open about the steel tariff idea. It was just a matter of time before he came back around to it. It might've just been a, "Well, he's going to do it at some point" or even just an offhand comment by Trump himself. Maybe something along the lines of, "I've gotta do something to get control of the news cycle back... maybe the steel tariff or come back to immigration?"

I'm not buying that Trump did that without discussing it with ANYONE. I think he talks in private, alot.

 

[BugI02]

Did you answer the question? I can't derive it from the quote, and I'm reluctant to infer too much.

Do you trust Trump, now (as opposed to when you voted for him), to put the interests of the country before his own?

[YES. Moreover, I am saying he already has a track record of having done so]

With regard to Icahn, I can imagine (pardon the play on words) that he made the move based on the totality of Trump's campaigning - before and after he was elected. Trump's been pretty open about the steel tariff idea. It was just a matter of time before he came back around to it. It might've just been a, "Well, he's going to do it at some point" or even just an offhand comment by Trump himself. Maybe something along the lines of, "I've gotta do something to get control of the news cycle back... maybe the steel tariff or come back to immigration?"

I'm not buying that Trump did that without discussing it with ANYONE. I think he talks in private, alot.

[Oh, I agree with this last part. Much is being made about Icahn being a former Trump advisor and dumping steel only 4 days prior to the Trump announcement. I don't think they exactly like each other or parted on friendly terms so I much doubt Trump tipped him. His administration is a different story, and I wonder how much play this will get if it can't be tied directly to trump]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

On a personal level, it would be difficult to conceive a need for more than 5 million under investment; for anybody of almost any lifestyle it seems hard to imagine a need for over 200 million. What drives people to keep going beyond that eludes me, so I can't rule out that Trump wants more, more, more but it's hard to believe he didn't know he was way better off, personal wealth-wise, as a private citizen than as President

1) Score keeping. CEO salaries went up dramatically once it was mandated they be public information.

2) Life style change vs world change. You can't start your own private NASA with 200 mil.

3) What else are they going to do?