"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"

[Cate Gory II]

[Mitch Cronin]

 

[DEFCON]

Hi Deicer

 

Did you read the Snopes synopsis?

 

I’ll add my own thoughts in respect of a few of the claims asserted.

 

 

“American auto industry breaking sales records.”

 

That’s great for the people selling cars I guess, but with all the vehicles flowing in from foreign manufacturers from all over the planet and little to nothing much going out, I’m not sure how labour is being served? 

 

 

“Clean energy production doubled.”

 

But at what cost? Did you know that more carbon is dumped into the environment by manufacturing a solar panel than the panel will keep out by replacing carbon based fuels over its life; I was surprised too.

 

 

“Unemployment cut in half.”

 

Numbers look good, but if mortgage demands etc. necessitate your holding two, or three Mcjobs to replace the pay you lost when your employer, GM Flint Michigan for example, left for China, I doubt you'd see improvement in the labour situation.

 

Bush II once told a woman how proud he was of her and the American work ethic after she commented on the extremely difficult challenges she faced managing all of life’s issues while working three jobs to make ends meet. Even though Bush was clearly & completely out of touch with the economic realities life imposes on the little people from the start, we survived him.

 

 

“Deficit cut by three quarters.”

 

A good example of the spin doctors ability to confuse the facts with statistics.

 

 

“Stock Market tripled.”

 

The stock market is more of a confidence sham than it is based on anything solid and besides, its standing is affected more by the policy decisions of the FED, nature & global events than anything a President does; the President follows the advice of the Treasury Secretary who is the FED’s representative in Washington as I’m sure you know.

 

 

In the past I was a proponent for a less imperialistic America, but sober reflection of events that have occurred over the past eight years says that wasn’t such a good idea after all; Obama had that view too.

 

It would appear that every tin pot dictator with an ambition has undertaken to pursue their dreams since Obama took Office. Heck, the lack of respect has gone so far that the Chinese were comfortable making the US President climb down from the belly of AF One; I don’t know whether I should admire Obama for sucking up the insult and carrying on, or shake my head because he didn’t pull up the ladder and leave town? Worst of all was the President of the Philippines calling Obama terrible names; America needs someone at the helm that commands respect and yes, even fear imo. Trump’s unpredictability ought to keep everyone, even Americans, on the edge of their seats.   

[deicer]

Good Morning Defcon

These are the metrics that the Republicans always touted.  Based on that, 8 years of Obama have been an overwhelming success over the policies of 8 years of Bush. 

And on top of the above, he did get Bin Laden, and more that 12 million American citizens have more affordable health care.

http://time.com/money/4209255/obamacare-enrollment-2016/

Any way you look at it, America is in way better shape now than it was 8 years ago when the Republicans were only handing out corporate welfare.

 

[DEFCON]

Hello Deicer

I do not, nor will I ever belong to, or defend a Party, its politics, or its record of accomplishment; Party bs has destroyed western democracies imo.

I haven't, I don't and I won't ever align myself with a Party of any stripe whether it be Canadian, or American.

I am fiscally conservative and have a bit of a tilt to the left socially.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could start further back, but let's instead begin with the second Bush; I think the record is clear; the GWB Administration was an abject American failure.

Obama sold his soul to the devil in return for its support of his candidacy and as you know, paybacks are a bitch. Beyond, I don't think history will remember Obama as being a strong dynamic leader of men. By example; the state of race relations in the US today are a consequence of his leadership style and will become a deserved blemish upon his legacy.

Obama didn't get Bin Laden, he was tracked down by various US agencies and taken out by brave military people; Obama's only bold act was to give the final 'go' command.

While 12 million people may have received a benefit, health care options in this example, I think it's important to note the fact that lots of people are going to have to do real work to pay for the others win.

Believe it, or not Deicer, I do have a streak of humanity running through me, but it comes with conditions at times. As it stands, I don't like deadbeats. For instance, I feel everyone ought to do their very best when & while they can and only turn to the public teat for 'help' when they're in trouble. I would prefer to not be treated as an income generator and leveler for men & women that should be held responsible for the consequences of their choices.

Contentious perhaps, but in my view, a considerable number of causes that were once the concern of charitable organizations have magically morphed into mandatory expectations and entitlements and managed by the ever wise & efficient government. Today, ANYONE and that includes elected officials too, holding an opinion contrary to that of the left wing and bold enough to speak out, can expect to be shouted down by the forces of political correctness; we're all apparently deplorable phobics in the mind of the Left.

Now thirty years or so in, I think it's safe to say that there's an insidious form of socialism creeping over society that's destroying the engine that provides the bounty in the first place. Government enforcers; Bob Rae, Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynn come to mind right off, have and continue to come up with new scams to steal away the futures of people that actually work to support themselves and families ... not fair! 

Everyone 'wants', me included, but the realistic goal posts I had in place and aimed for were constantly moved by one government decry, or another until my age finally positioned them beyond my reach. Successive governments have taken from me and not to serve some legitimate altruistic purpose, but only to

satisfy their short-term political ambitions, which has resulted in huge municipal, provincial & national deficits and debt, not to mention taxes and I resent that atrociously selfish style of governance.

Trump is an agent of change. Like so many others, I'm not looking for oratory excellence, I just want someone in the Office that's actually capable of shaking the tree and effecting meaningful change that I can believe in.

 

 

 

[boestar]

There is a game at play here that most do not want to see or just blindly ignore.  Eventually we will not have a Prime minister or President or Chancellor.  We will have a CEO.  And the corporation will have 8 Billion Employees.

 

[deicer]

Hi Defcon

Although we think alike on many things, when it comes to politics, I think we're trying to achieve the same thing but in different directions.

The one thing I will differ on(if I may digress) is Bob Rae's Social Contract.  While he was vilified, to me Rae Days were a good thing in that although the NDP leader made cuts, and made government employees take 12 unpaid days off which were unpopular, at least they kept their jobs. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_(Ontario)

The change that came with Harris' Common Sense Revolution was that everything was privatised and most lost their jobs.  And the profits of the projects that were paid for by the people of Ontario were given to Corporations that took the money out of the country.

Mulroney did the same thing on a federal level.

That is why I can never support a conservative government.  Conservatives only conserve money for the rich.

And unfortunately, McGuinty and Wynn have just continued the selloff.

Getting back to the change that you think that Trump represents, everything comes at a cost. 

My opinion is that while Clinton is not an ideal candidate either, Trump is too great a price to pay to get the change that you feel is needed.

[deicer]

And further to the above, from today's news, how any 'honest' American citizen who pays their taxes could vote for the man, well, then they deserve what they get.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trump-boasted-he-pays-no-incometax/article32088135/

 

[UpperDeck]

I confess.....I think Ibertson (sp?) is wrong and it follows that I don't understand your position.

I don't know whether it is still the case but in years gone by, pilots became non-residents (and really put their mind to accomplishing that) and closely monitored hours spent in Canadian airspace and declared only that income. That was a legitimate exercise.

Tax avoidance is lawful. Tax evasion is unlawful. As of yet, Trump has not been accused of tax evasion. If he lawfully minimized his personal tax exposure then I agree....that was an intelligent exercise of a tax accountant's expertise.

Would you think him MORE electable if he paid more income tax than the amount for which he was liable under the US tax code? Really?

[Don Hudson]

UpperDeck, I agree - I think Ibbitson has it wrong...I doubt if Trump has done anything illegal with his taxes. I believe that the U.S. tax laws are in place to do as he has done. I recall seeing in the past few days a letter from the IRS regarding Trump's taxes and, if such a letter can be believed, (not faked), the IRS was "happy" that the correct taxes were paid, (or something like that...can't recall details).

That acknowledged, Corporate America has nicely rigged the tax system to permit what he and senior members of the Wall Street cabal do, which is why they bristle upon any talk from Elizabeth Warren and other protectors of the notion of the middle class, of de-rigging the system, (ostensibly so that there can be once again an American middle class).

On the "supply" side... wages are going up - (oh, happy day etc.), about time. It shows that in spite of eight years of Republican obstructionism from the Senate and the House, what Obama has done since 2009 is working for ordinary people.

I know that many here will possibly point to other attributions for such economic success. Let us hear of them so we can have a real debate where valid points are sometimes conceded, and not the debate from Two Different Worlds that we heard the other night.

Trickle-down has been proven not to work. Since the eighties, the big sponge which was to hold all the money but leak downwards to those below only partially worked; it left out the "trickle down" part.

It worked very well for the principle of, "Everything for ourselves and nothing for everyone else."

Since Reagan, the "trickle" had stopped somewhere just below the 1% who are unimaginably, fabulously, needlessly wealthy, parked offshore avoiding taxes and philanthropy.

Donald Trump has only one charity.

We know that Trump has a standard go-to approach to anything that goes against his personal interests or even threatens to: "The system is rigged." The mic didn't work,  Lester went after me, if Hillary wins the election was rigged, the polls are rigged, as nauseum. Poor, poor Donald.

Followed by his surrogates and his sycophantic media who can't even recognize a serious, journalistic dysfunction in their own industry, Donald started whining in the Spin Room right after bombing in the debate. And the media just ate it up, a shameful bunch of enablers.

The scales are slowly falling from the eyes of some right-wing papers however...see below, the Arizona Republic.

Fox News, illustrating that they are still inhabiting a strange, disconnected, alternate reality had Donald "winning" by a huge margin.

Do we even have to ask the question, "Are they really that stupid?"

When things are counter to his world view, he whines like an eight-year-old child, browbeats people like an elementary-schoolyard bully, exaggerates and fusses over his ego like a gardener, lies with impunity and the other night was incoherent to the point of scariness that such a man can get this close to the presidency and people still believe his erratic silliness qualifies him for the job.

His is a profound and immature irresponsibility which is demonstrably focussed on one thing: the protection of the ego.

And world leaders who are very clever and very sinister, know this all too well.

Do we want such fragilities in the Oval Office?

Many here are in professions which understand very well the risks and the hazards of huge, unapproachable egos. Medicine, aviation, engineering, science, even law, all know that placing ego before wisdom-of-action can have serious, unwanted outcomes. Aviation is full of such examples.

By putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the danger to the world measurably increases not because he doesn't know enough or has terrible personal judgement and a temperament more suited to Wall Street avarice but because he is incapable of understanding what a lie is.

He has normalized the deviance to the extent where he doesn't have the necessary crap-detectors that a president needs because he believes only himself and that what he utters is "truth by the fact that it has been uttered".

He really can't tell the difference. But world leaders can.

Should he become President, the danger then, is, the many facts in the briefings he would receive from experienced, high-level people who know their stuff would be re-interpreted and re-introduced into the meeting such that only Donald's views would survive. We've seen this every time he is challenged by views different from his own. Donald has demonstrated  incapacity to distinguish, understand and even just hear actual, real truth when it threatens his ego, or is incongruous to his view of world realities.

From Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass*:

Quote

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Because he is so self-absorbed with protecting his ego, he is unable to comprehend the threatening realities of a real presidency.

The US military must be quietly terrified that Donald may become their president and commander-in-chief. Should it come to pass, one anticipates the inevitable collision between established powers with strong histories and a powerful Pentagon, and the neophyte president who may not know who to listen to when a crunch comes.

That's dangerous.

It is dangerous for the world because he is up against very bright, powerful world leaders who are equally capable of doing to Donald Trump what Hillary Clinton did to him on Monday night. 

Hillar Clinton successfully baited Donald and he stepped into every simple trap she set. She cleaned Donald's clock.

Donald's performance was an embarrassing, shameful, even self-destructive bob-and-weave in a medium with which he claims expertise and experience. It didn't look like it, and his slouching discomfort was everything but presidential.

We can argue that Trump is "change", but we need to ask, "towards what?" It's not that I don't like his politics; he just has none.

His "policies" are just a rag-tag, confused, incoherent mash-up of unworkable notions that get cheers and waves from one crowd or another. He is still naively under the spell of "the crowd". There is no plan, no vision and certainly no connection with "nation" called the United States of America or its history.

As with every president thus far, we have seen a number of common, obvious qualities: - a connection with "America", the sense of native intelligence, a measure of history and substance, of depth of empathy with others, a visible comprehension of realities of the presidency, a sense of nation and one's country's position in the world and above all, an abiding, recognizable humanity.

Donald Trump has none of these personal qualities, talents or capacities.

Waiting for him to, as he says, "do better" in the next debate, is a mug's game - the "well" itself is poisoned. He is incapable of change, of self-control, and unable to learn new things, even those that would advantage him in this race of his lifetime. It isn't possible for him to "do better". What we see is what the world gets.

 

* Through the Looking Glass, Ch.6 Humpty Dumpty

In historic first, Arizona Republic backs a Democrat for president, citing Trump’s ‘deep character flaws’

 

 

[deicer]

Well said Don.

I was working on a response along the same lines, but it wasn't as eloquent or involved.

 

[av8tor]

Very thoughtful and well-written Don!

The paradox in all of this is that while the media (such as the Arizona Republic newspaper to which you refer) and the “elites” of American society all condemn Trump (and rightly so), Trump continues to thus far hang in there in the polls.

A contact living and working in a very senior company position in Arizona has related that “everybody” he speaks to is going to vote for Trump. Their newspaper may not support Trump but I suspect its endorsement of Clinton may only serve to harden the resolve of Trump supporters whose only important mantra seems to be: “throw the bums out!”

My sister lives in Florida for 6 months of the year and she has told me that, in social conversations with her neighbors, if Trump is disparaged, well, the conversation becomes a bit frosty after that.

All of this is to say that it would appear that many American voters are so disillusioned, so disenchanted and so disabused with “government” that they have moved past the idea of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” to embrace its inverse. As Trump himself has said to the Black community: “What have you got to lose?”

Any thinking person should realize that there is much to lose. This is certainly a fascinating contest to observe – more so because there is so much riding on its outcome.

[Don Hudson]

av8tor, re " All of this is to say that it would appear that many American voters are so disillusioned, so disenchanted and so disabused with “government” that they have moved past the idea of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” to embrace its inverse. As Trump himself has said to the Black community: “What have you got to lose?” "

I agree with you.

The security of the nation is paramount and in this case, a serious matter to be discussed. "What have you got to lose?" is a rhetorical question that demands people set aside their concerns and fears and "just go for it".

Well, that just isn't good enough in a presidential race. Trump has done himself no favours by courting and complimenting the Russian President. Why would he do such a thing so contrary to the security and interests of the United States?

Trump has been "normalized" by his incessant, schoolyard histrionics which now appear to be normal stuff and just part of the mess. Hillary has an uphill battle all the way and still may lose because of the "Aleppo-Moment" idiot, Gary Johnson.

Donald Trump is anything but "normal" in the usual sense of the term. I would never counsel anyone to vote "for" Hillary - such a vote is a defensive move against what many now consider a "clear and present danger".

I think there is a widespread willful blindness borne of anger, frustration, a hatred of Obama inculcated by the Republican Party and its rump parliament, the Tea Party, and an irrational "want" to fix things immediately.

Elections are always theatre first, rationality later. Here, it is all on the surface and Hillary is taking full advantage as a candidate should. A Trump presidency, examined in cold daylight, is a great risk.

 

[DEFCON]

Deicer

 

I haven’t bothered to check, but I’ll bet the Clinton’s claimed deductions that ultimately reduced the amount of tax due. If I am understanding your argument correctly, I’d have to ask; if the Clinton’s are “honest taxpaying Americans”, why would they advance any claim for deductions when they could just pay the full nut?

[DEFCON]

Did anyone watch the Comey interview yesterday? It provided a number of WOW grade moments; there can be no doubt, the woman and her crew are crooks ... period! What's next; will we learn that Hilary allowed a foreign spy to get into her operation? 

I am at a complete loss; while the world comes apart at the seams, the Left continues to be propelled by some form of illogical rationality? What force compels them to focus their attention and energies on the most trivial of issues including the birther saga, income tax disclosures and Trumps somewhat disrespectful comments in respect of women & men that he finds unattractive, all while ignoring the reality that is their candidate???

Meanwhile, as Hilary slithers & bashes her way forward towards election day, her camp follows dutifully, seemingly oblivious to the bag of fatal flaws their candidate carries with her. As it is, there are almost too many past & current irregularities attached to every segment of her personal & professional lives, not to mention her physical being, to list ... the Pied Piper has nothing on Hiilary.

Is everyone ready for Wikileak's promised 'October surprise'?

      

[deicer]

And Trump is caught violating the Cuba embargo and ignoring U.S. law.

So obviously he thinks he is above the law.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/us-election-news-republican-candidate-donald-trumps-company-allegedly-violated-cuba-trade-embargo-newsweek-says.html

A company controlled by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump secretly conducted business in Cuba in the late 1990s in violation of the long-running trade embargo, Newsweek reported Friday, citing interviews with former executives, internal company records and court filings.

 

MSNBC first unveiled details of the report late on Thursday.

Documents indicated that the Trump company, then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, spent at least $68,000 in 1998, with Trump's knowledge, funneling the cash through a consulting firm so that it could appear legal by tying it to an after-the-fact charitable endeavor, the report said.

Edited to add the following Newsweek article which originally broke the story.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html

Updated | A company controlled by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, secretly conducted business in Communist Cuba during Fidel Castro’s presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings.

Documents show that the Trump company spent a minimum of $68,000 for its 1998 foray into Cuba at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval. But the company did not spend the money directly. Instead, with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm called Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp. Once the business consultants traveled to the island and incurred the expenses for the venture, Seven Arrows instructed senior officers with Trump’s company—then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts—how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.

The payment by Trump Hotels came just before the New York business mogul launched his first bid for the White House, seeking the nomination of the Reform Party. On his first day of the campaign, he traveled to Miami, where he spoke to a group of Cuban-Americans, a critical voting bloc in the swing state. Trump vowed to maintain the embargo and never spend his or his companies’ money in Cuba until Fidel Castro was removed from power.

He did not disclose that, seven months earlier, Trump Hotels already had reimbursed its consultants for the money they spent on their secret business trip to Havana.

At the time, Americans traveling to Cuba had to receive specific U.S. government permission, which was granted only for an extremely limited number of purposes, such as humanitarian efforts. Neither an American nor a company based in the United States could spend any cash in Cuba; instead, a foreign charity or similar sponsoring entity needed to pay all expenses, including travel. Without obtaining a license from the federal Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) before the consultants went to Cuba, the undertaking by Trump Hotels would have been in violation of federal law, trade experts say.

Officials with the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization did not respond to emails seeking comment on the Cuba trip, further documentation about the endeavor or an interview with Trump. Richard Fields, who was then the principal in charge of Seven Arrows, did not return calls seeking comment.

Following the publication of this article on Newsweek.com, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, was asked about the allegations on the television program The View. She replied that, “They paid money, as I understand, in 1998,” but went on to say that Trump had never invested in the Caribbean nation. In that statement, Conway has acknowledged that Trump broke the law. Paying the money for the business trip and meetings in Cuba – regardless of whether it resulted in an additional investment or casino deal – would directly violate the law.

A former Trump executive who spoke on condition of anonymity says the company did not obtain a government license prior to the trip. Internal documents show that executives involved in the Cuba project were still discussing the need for federal approval after the trip had taken place.

OFAC officials say there is no record that the agency granted any such license to the companies or individuals involved, although they cautioned that some documents from that time have been destroyed. Yet one OFAC official, who agreed to discuss approval procedures if granted anonymity, says the probability that the office would grant a license for work on behalf of an American casino is “essentially zero.”

Prior to the Cuban trip, several European companies reached out to Trump about potentially investing together on the island through Trump Hotels, according to the former Trump executive. At the time, a bipartisan group of senators, three former secretaries of state and other former officials were urging then-President Bill Clinton to review America’s Cuba policy, in hopes of eventually ending the decades-long embargo.

The goal of the Cuba trip, the former Trump executive says, was to give Trump’s company a foothold should Washington loosen or lift the trade restrictions. While in Cuba, the Trump representatives met with government officials, bankers and other business leaders to explore possible opportunities for the casino company. The former executive says Trump had participated in discussions about the Cuba trip and knew it had taken place.

The fact that Seven Arrows spent the money and then received reimbursement from Trump Hotels does not mitigate any potential corporate liability for violating the Cuban embargo. “The money that the Trump company paid to the consultant is money that a Cuban national has an interest in and was spent on an understanding it would be reimbursed,’’ says Richard Matheny, chair of Goodwin’s national security and foreign trade regulation group, based on a description of the events by Newsweek. “That would be illegal. If OFAC discovered this and found there was evidence of willful misconduct, they could have made a referral to the Department of Justice.”

Shortly after Trump Hotels reimbursed Seven Arrows, the two companies parted ways. Within months, Trump formed a presidential exploratory committee. He soon decided to seek the nomination of the Reform Party, which was founded by billionaire Ross Perot after his unsuccessful 1992 bid for the White House.

Trump launched his presidential campaign in Miami in November 1999. There, at a luncheon hosted by the Cuban American National Foundation, an organization of Cuban exiles, he proclaimed he wanted to maintain the American embargo and would not spend any money in Cuba so long as Fidel Castro remained in power. At the time, disclosing that his company had just spent money on the Cuba trip, or even acknowledging an interest in loosening the embargo, would have ruined Trump’s chances in Florida, a critical electoral state where large numbers of Cuban-Americans remain virulently opposed to the regime.

“As you know—and the people in this room know better than anyone—putting money and investing money in Cuba right now doesn’t go to the people of Cuba,’’ Trump told the crowd. “It goes to Fidel Castro. He’s a murderer. He’s a killer. He’s a bad guy in every respect, and, frankly, the embargo must stand if for no other reason than, if it does stand, he will come down.”

Its Stock Price Had Collapsed

By the time Trump gave that speech, 36 years had passed since the Treasury Department in the Kennedy administration imposed the embargo. The rules prohibited any American person or company—even those with operations in other foreign countries—from engaging in financial transactions with any person or entity in Cuba. The lone exceptions: humanitarian efforts and telecommunications exports.

The impact of the embargo intensified in 1991, when the collapse of the Soviet Union ended its oil subsidies to the island and triggered a broad economic collapse. By 1993, Cuba faced extreme shortages, and Castro was forced to start printing money solely to cover government deficits. Three years later, the U.S. Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act, which codified the embargo into law and worsened Cuba’s economic decline. With many financial options closed off, Cuba attempted to find overseas investment to modernize its tourism industry and other businesses.

The first signs that American policy might be shifting came in March 1998, when President Clinton announced several major changes. Among them: resuming charter flights between the United States and Cuba for authorized Americans, streamlining procedures for exporting medical equipment and allowing Cubans in the U.S. to send small amounts of cash to their relatives on the island. However, Americans and American companies still could not legally spend their own money in Cuba.

That fall, as critics pressured Clinton to further loosen the embargo, Trump Hotels saw an opportunity. Like the Communist regime, the company was struggling, having piled up losses for years. In 1998 alone, Trump Hotels lost $39.7 million, according to the company’s financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Its stock price had collapsed, falling almost 80 percent from a high that year of $12 a share to a low of just $2.75. (After multiple bankruptcies, Trump severed his ties with the company; it is now called Trump Entertainment Resorts and is a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises, run by renowned financier Carl Icahn.)   

The company was desperate to find partners for new business that offered the chance to increase profits, according to another former Trump executive who spoke on condition of anonymity. The hotel and casino company assigned Seven Arrows, which had been working with Trump for several years, to develop such opportunities, including the one in Cuba.

On February 8, 1999, months after the consultants traveled to the island, Seven Arrows submitted a bill to Trump Hotels for the $68,551.88 it had “incurred prior to and including a trip to Cuba on behalf of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc.”

The 1999 document also makes clear that executives were still discussing the legal requirements for such a trip after the consultants had already returned from Cuba. The government does not provide after-the-fact licenses.

“Under current law trips of the sort Mr. Fields took to Cuba must be sanctioned not only by the White House but are technically on behalf of a charity,’’ the bill submitted to Trump Hotels says. “The one most commonly used is Carinas Cuba.”

The instructions contain two errors. First, while OFAC is part of the executive branch, the White House itself does not provide licenses for business dealings in Cuba. Second, the correct name of the charity is Caritas Cuba, a group formed in 1991 by the Catholic Church, which provides services for the elderly, children and other vulnerable populations in the Caribbean nation. Caritas Cuba did not respond to emails about contacts it may have had with Trump Hotels, Seven Arrows or any individuals associated with them.

The invoice from Seven Arrows was submitted to John Burke, who was then the corporate treasurer of Trump Hotels. In a lawsuit on a different legal issue, Burke testified that Trump Hotels paid the bill in full, although he denied recognizing the document.

The Cuba venture was one of two assignments given to Seven Arrows at that time, and the second has already emerged as an issue in the GOP nominee’s bid for the presidency. Trump Hotels also paid the consulting firm to help develop a deal with the Seminole tribe of Florida to partner in a casino there. Knowing that the Florida Legislature and governor opposed casino gambling in the state, Trump authorized developing a strategy to win over politicians to get the laws changed in an effort named “Gambling Project.” The law firm of Greenberg Traurig was retained to assemble the strategy. A copy of the plan prepared by the lawyers showed the strategy involved hiring multiple consultants, lobbyists and media relations firms to persuade the governor and the Legislature to allow casino gambling in the state. The key to possible success? Campaign contributions.

The plan states “the executive and legislative branches of Florida government are driven by many influences, the most meaningful of which lies in campaign giving.” For the Legislature, it recommends giving to “leadership accounts” maintained by state political parties, rather than to individual lawmakers, because “this is where the big bucks go and the real influence is negotiated.” Records show Seven Arrows also incurred $38,996.32 on its work on the Gaming Project, far less than it spent for the Cuba endeavor.

Aside from deceiving Cuban-Americans, records of the 1998 initiatives show that Trump lied to voters about his efforts in Florida during that period. At the second Republican presidential debate in September 2015, one of Trump’s rivals, Jeb Bush, said the billionaire had tried to buy him off with favors and contributions when he was Florida’s governor in an effort to legalize casino gambling in the state. “Totally false,’’ Trump responded. “I would have gotten it.”

The documents obtained by Newsweek give no indication why the $39,000 spent on Seven Arrows’ primary assignment—arranging for a casino deal with the Seminole tribe—was so much less than the $68,000 expended on the Cuba effort. The former Trump executive could not offer any explanation for the disparity.

Though it has long been illegal for corporations to spend money in Cuba without proper authorization, there is no chance that Trump, the company or any of its executives will be prosecuted for wrongdoing. The statute of limitations ran out long ago, and legal analysts say OFAC’s enforcement division is understaffed, so the chances for an investigation were slim even at the time.

And perhaps that was the calculation behind the company’s decision to flout the law: the low risk of getting caught versus the high reward of lining up Cuban allies if the U.S. loosened or dropped the embargo. The only catch: What would happen if Trump’s Cuban-American supporters ever found out?

Update: Adds Trump campaign manager confirmation. 

[DEFCON]

Don

"Well, that just isn't good enough in a presidential race. Trump has done himself no favours by courting and complimenting the Russian President. Why would he do such a thing so contrary to the security and interests of the United States?"

Can you tell me why the US shouldn't seek to enjoy improved relations with the Russians? Is another Cold War the national ambition? Should we hold the leadership of the modern western world up as the bastion of truth & morality when considering future possibilities in this respect? 

 "I think there is a widespread willful blindness borne of anger, frustration, a hatred of Obama inculcated by the Republican Party and its rump parliament, the Tea Party, and an irrational "want" to fix things immediately."

I don't have any affiliation with an American political Party and I don't 'hate' Obama, but I don't think he's any kind of leader regardless and after 16 years of Presidential and Congressional ineptness, who could blame the people for wanting to get on with fixing the mess anyway?

 

 

[UpperDeck]

Complimenting someone...recognizing their competence...does not necessarily mean that one intends to emulate that individual or intend to become his "new best friend".

"We" may not like what Putin has "accomplished" in the last decade or so but how can anyone deny that from the perspective of a Russian, he has achieved a great deal and restored a lot of pride that was diminished with the break-up of the USSR. His approval rating far exceeds that of President Obama.

And given that, why should Trump be criticized? And yet, the answer to that is fairly obvious. After all, when Hillary's emails were "lost" or not forthcoming and Trump said; "Maybe Putin can get them for us.", he was pilloried in the press and by the opposition for conduct that amounted to treason.....inviting a foreign power to intercede in domestic politics. I doubt many here failed to detect the irony (and humour) intended? So----- he is criticized for not "measuring" his remarks for political consumption.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a cheerleader for "the Donald" but when I read some of the attacks both in the press and on various forums, I confess that on occasion (with NO alcohol involved), I hope the devil wins simply because he speaks without filters.

"Miss Piggy"?? Anyone on this forum looked at an FA squeezing down the aisle sideways and thought the same thing? You have to keep those thoughts to yourself but every once in awhile, you silently cheer the fellow who is now roasting on a spit because he failed to exercise "discretion".

[Fido]

2 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

I hope the devil wins

simply to watch the Lefties go postal

[J.O.]

UD:

Are you suggesting that we dismiss the commonly held assumption that discretion and decorum are prerequisites for leadership?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, J.O. said:

UD:

Are you suggesting that we dismiss the commonly held assumption that discretion and decorum are prerequisites for leadership?

Can not think of anyone who had met those prerequisites recently.

[J.O.]

Apparently we have different filters, and I've been wondering if mine was set a little too fine! 

[UpperDeck]

1 hour ago, J.O. said:

UD:

Are you suggesting that we dismiss the commonly held assumption that discretion and decorum are prerequisites for leadership?

Honestly? I don't think I can say what attributes result in "leadership". I can certainly agree that discretion and decorum are "bonus" but why no one listens to "Mary" who is dedicated to the betterment of humanity and self-effacing and gracious and intelligent and (etc.) but follow "John" like puppies despite his ill-natured humor and ignorance (etc) Who knows? Going to West Point doesn't make one a leader. If you come up with a recipe.....we'll be rich!!

Side by side.....John Kasich appeared the better prospect, didn't he? And yet....Trump blew him away just as he disposed of Rubio.

Obviously, a significant number of people are attracted to his "leadership".

[Don Hudson]

New York Times Upshot -interactive site: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/clinton-trump-paths-to-win-election.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20160930&nl=upshot&nl_art=0&nlid=63732910&ref=headline&te=1

Full NYT site: Who Will Win?  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

[deicer]

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/trumps-overnight-twitter-tirade-sums-weaknesses/