Trump 2020 Continues ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​:)


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, deicer said:

Comments from Conrad Black, a convicted criminal, who also has a long and storied history of screwing the average man, are irrelevant.

deicer, as are comments that we make about the recent US election. Nothing we say or do will change anything.  We are better off keeping an eye on what is happening here in Canada. For instance:

Pipelines left out of climate strategy

THIS IS PRODUCT THAT IS ALREADY BEING EXTRACTED AND PROCESSED ... TODAY.

 OTTAWA • The federal government has released its long- term climate strategy with a caution that most Canadians don’t yet understand how difficult it will be. The federal government’s long-term climate strategy says, in order to reduce greenhouse gas output, Canada must make a move to electrification of transportation, building heating and industrial power. The paper does not mention the current political debate over approval of new, long-term fossil fuel infrastructure, including pipelines.

“Most Canadians recognize the need to mitigate climate change and limit the increase in the global average temperature, but the magnitude of the challenge is less well understood, with a requirement for very deep emissions cuts from every sector by mid-century,” says the 87- page plan, released Friday at an international climate conference in Morocco.

The document says that for Canada to reduce its entire output of greenhouse gases to 150 million tonnes a year by 2050 to match the international Paris climate accord, a major move to electrification for everything from transportation to building heating and industrial power is necessary. The most recent Environment Canada inventory assessed the country’s carbon dioxide equivalent emissions at 732 million tonnes in 2014 — and slowly rising.

Forestry, agriculture, municipal waste, technological innovation and energy efficiency — 38 per cent of all emissions cuts needed can be achieved through energy efficiencies, notes the paper — all get their own chapters, but Canada’s oil and gas sector does not.

Nor does the strategy paper mention the current political debate over approval of new, long- term fossil fuel infrastructure, including pipelines. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has already approved a major liquefied natural gas project for northern B.C. this fall and is poised to pronounce on Kinder Morgan’s proposed tripling of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline by mid-December.

“Canada’s mid- century strategy is not a blueprint for action and it is not policy prescriptive,” states the document. “Rather, the report is meant to inform the conversation about how Canada can achieve a lowcarbon economy.”

Environmental advocates were quick to weigh in.

“The report’s warnings on the dangers of building new infrastructure that locks in a high-carbon economy has to be seen as a big, flashing red light telling Trudeau to reject the Kinder Morgan and Energy East pipelines,” Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada said Friday in an email.

Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson, chair of the big-city mayors caucus in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, was in Marrakech at the climate conference all week and has heard the antipipeline pitch repeatedly.

He said that he sees no inconsistency in approving new pipelines while driving down greenhouse gas emissions, noting a million barrels of oil a day currently travels through Edmonton neighbourhoods by rail.

“This is product that is already being extracted and processed, to some degree, today,” said Iveson.

“And it’s going to continue to be as long as there’s a market for it. And there’s going to continue to be a market for it as we make this transition.”

IMO cheers Malcolm

Edited by Malcolm
edited to add an example before reading reply from deicer. Someone who has, in my opinion, always been civil.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I didn't see the correction regarding the woman who complained her hijab was torn off. Allegedly....she lied. Trump was elected by virtue of the votes of those he persuaded with his campaign pron

This is all I will say on the subject. Let's be honest, they didn't exactly have an easy choice. Liar vs. Liar is a pretty accurate way to frame it. They made their choice but were deeply divided in d

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

deicer, as are comments that we make about the recent US election. Nothing we say or do will change anything.  We are better off keeping an eye on what is happening here in Canada. IMO cheers Malcolm

Gday Malcolm

As always, what happens in the States always affects us.  For example, yesterday CNN reported that they announced the biggest oil field ever in history in the U.S.  Something along the lines of 20 billion barrels worth.  They've known about it for years, but only now has it become 'viable'. 

So this won't affect the push for the pipeline from Alberta?  No repercussions for the Canadian economy?

American politics and economics affect the whole world.  That is why we should pay attention and speak up, just as we should for Canadian politics.

It is my opinion that our education system has created the perfect generation of non thinkers only interested in pop culture and their cell phones.

If it is an annoyance that I wish to bring forth ideas to discuss in an open forum, with backup from mostly reliable news sources, I will not apologize.

The world is going in the wrong direction, and while I agree that change is definitely needed, the turn the U.S. has taken is too far in the wrong direction.

Thanks for listening and being civil. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prez-to-be 'chirps' up: "The Theater must always be a safe and special place".

 

There's gotta be a huge - really, really huge - amount of US Presidential irony in there somewhere! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, re;

"Trump supporters need to keep in mind that it is a fact of this election that less than half of all voters are happy with the outcome"

It is not a fact at all and is misleading as to the conclusion you want others to draw.

Fact is, Hillary gained less than 50% of the popular vote AS WELL.

The Libertarians had 4 million of the popular vote.  If not given the choice to vote Libertarian, but had to select Republican or Democrat, 100% of those votes go republican, giving Trump more than half of the popular vote.

Libertarians knew they could never win, but were elated Hillary did not.

In Canada, we have seen large voting blocks split with Party divides, and third place becomes a ruling party with sometimes only 1/3 of the popular vote. (Alberta).  It's how they ended up with Stelmach, the idiot farmer.

It is always the losing side who, unable to deal with loss, begins to deal with it by reimagining it as a "Psuedo loss" that hasn't really happened, but is due to unjust rules.

It happens in sports, law, and business.  The Winners are always Winners, but losers can go from Loser to Sore Loser. 

Trump truly, and without doubt, simply played the better game.

The real fact is, this is the system their beloved constitution enshrines as the beacon of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.  It has been shoved down the throats of other countries who didn't really want it through incursions, assassinations, manipulations, bribery, and war.  

If it doesn't work, then change it, but not one Democrat was breaking down two days before the election screaming how unjust the system is that would place Hillary as President and should be abolished.  They only screamed that Donald must graciously accept the forgone assumption of divine destiny and ordination of Hillary.  They surmised how he would act, and plotted how to further denigrate the man with the medias backing. 

Popular Vote is the champion of the losers, always.

The only way to truly have uncontested results is to run, as some countries do, election runoffs (tournament style election South America and Europe)  over 2-3 days with a mandatory vote Australia) under penalty of fine or imprisonment, Australia, for instance, requires 100% eligible voters to cast a ballot or be fined (in Australia, the fine are up to 50 dollars).  

This process, while tremendously expensive, is the only way to ensure there is never a popular vote whine, or an Electoral College, first-past-the-post manipulation.  If 100% of the population must allocate their full support to only 1 of 2 candidates, then truly the popular vote can produce clear majorities.

It could easily be paid for though, by the 100 million voters who didn't bother to show up (but are no doubt yelling the loudest)  (100 million x 50 dollars = 5 billion dollars) - that should cover it. ;)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

acsidestick - no worries re tone; mine probably are pretty strident. I'll take time to read your thoughts, thanks.

Okay...

edited: My comment about less than half of the voters, (that should have been slightly less than half, sorry), is in accord with the facts of the election. What I was thinking was, almost half the country is unhappy with the outcome. See comments below.

Given that the fact that the numbers are constantly being updated, here is a sample from various sites:

Quote

Here are the results as of November 18, according to the Cook Political Report:

Clinton: 63,049,607 47.9%
Trump: 61,610,484 46.8%

Here are the popular vote results as of November 18 from USelectionatlas.org, which is also keeping an updated tally:

Clinton: 63,037,875 47.74%
Trump: 61,645,235 46.68%

 

The following site doesn't have a date on it - I think its probably after November 18 though.

From, Popular vote: Unofficial, Electoral Vote: Projected

  Presidential
Candidate
Vice Presidential
Candidate
Political
Party
Popular Vote Electoral Vote
0000DD.gif Donald J. Trump Michael R. Pence Republican 62,001,293 46.55% 306 56.9%
DD0000.gif Hillary Clinton Tim Kaine Democratic 63,715,574 47.83% 232 43.1%
FFFF00.gif Gary Johnson William F. Weld Libertarian 4,373,733 3.28% 0 0.0%
FFFF00.gif Dr. Jill Stein Ajamu Baraka Green 1,364,411 1.02% 0 0.0%
FFFF00.gif Write-ins - - 758,969 0.57% 0 0.0%
00DD00.gif Evan McMullin Mindy Finn Independent 545,212 0.41% 0 0.0%
Y Other (+) - - 439,510 0.33% 0 0.0%

 

From, 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker : Overall Vote%s

i-FstrgMr-L.jpg

From USAToday

Quote

Q: Who won the popular vote?

A: Clinton's lead of about 1.7 million votes continues to increase, largely due to an influx of absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in California. She has about 63.7 million votes to Trump's 62 million; her margin in California alone is about 3.5 million.

Taking the above numbers, knowing they'll change a bit, as of the counting today, (California has about 2m votes yet to count), Clinton has received  63,712,231 votes, or 48% of the popular vote. Donald Trump received 61,979,986 votes, or 46.7% of the popular vote. Clinton received 1,732,245 more votes than Trump. In fact, Donald Trump is the least popular president-elect in history.

Am I missing something?

ed.: As far as a "sore loser" goes, please, let us leave these binary notions of "winner/loser" out of it. I know who won and am not sore about it, I'm disappointed and more than a little worried for the country, and beyond.

No matter which candidate they supported, disappointment and more was inevitable. People have a right to be disappointed, particularly given the numbers above. But Trump is the winner. I accept that but neither I nor anyone else have any obligation to be happy about the outcome, or silent about the path this administration appears to be taking.

I have tried to be serious about expressing my views. They're pretty blunt - the candidate deserves "extreme vetting", in my view. I'm expressing my views as to the quality of the next President, which I think is terrible and I think he'll be quick about proving it to his supporters. Frankly, we should leave who really "won" and who "lost", for time and history to judge.

In terms of my own contributions, I always tried to be focussed on the character and suitability of the candidate, not about either party. That said, I thought the Republicans, led by McConnell who stated quite clearly than his only task was to shut Obama down, were obstructionist and dysfunctional to levels unheard of in modern politics. I would have preferred a competent, true conservative candidate this time 'round and I have said that, and have said many times that I was never a Clinton supporter.

 

Edited by Don Hudson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau was elected with a positive vote of only 29% of eligible voters, yet he parades around like he is the second coming of Christ telling the world he represents the will of the people in Canada, which is the furthest thing from the truth but makes a great sound bite. In reality "Popular" vote means nothing. Winning by the rules in place at the time is all that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jaydee;

Yes, I accept that the candidate "wins" when she-he wins by the rules in place, period. If people don't go out to vote, or so many candidates fill the field so that "winning" means getting the best of four or five candidates, (not referring to the last elections...just talking generally), then so be it.

mo32a, re Trump & the TPP, yes, that was not unexpected. This lends credence to the expectation that Trump is going to do exactly has he said he would during the campaign. The presidency will exaggerate who and what he already is.

I recall the protests over NAFTA in the mid-eighties. It became fact and the political economy has since adjusted and now relies upon such trade agreements. That doesn't mean they can't be undone, but the world has moved a long way past "countries-as-islands". We'll see how this turns out for the American workers. One thing is certain - it is not possible to "bring jobs back". They're gone, because many of them are "of another time" and another economy which has long morphed into tech solutions and requirements for different skills. I would be looking at spending tons of money on infrastructure, and higher education to build jobs.

deicer, we'll have to watch that "hail" & nazi salute trend, which isn't new in the U.S. but this travesty today comes directly from Trump and Bannon who have themselves 'normalized' such heinous and dangerous behaviour. (for those who think nothing of it or dismiss it as unimportant, let me ask, is it really okay to mimic anything associated with Hitler?).

We will have to see if it gets traction but it has absolutely no place, anywhere. People are much bolder now than they were prior to the election. As I say, Trump has no concept of what he is doing to the country, and he is unleashing things that he won't be able to put back into the bottle.

Edited by Don Hudson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, the point was that nearly every vote that counted left, essentially, went to Hillary.  The right vote was shortchanged by 4 million supporters of Johnson.  Combining all left, and all right votes show quite clearly that, of those who chose to vote, the majority still identify right, not left.

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter either, I'm simply amazed that in the entire United States, they couldn't come up with anyone better than these two to lead the free world, although Trump might be picking a SoS who would have been outstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"People are much bolder now than they were prior to the election."

In what ways? 

"As I say, Trump has no concept of what he is doing to the country"

Huh?

"and he is unleashing things that he won't be able to put back into the bottle."

... for instance?

I don't intend to sound demanding Don; I'm just curious.

BTW, did anyone notice that the markets are way up and into new record territory? I think we'd all agree the up tick has got to be a good thing for a bunch of reasons and yet there hasn't been a peep from even Dagger? What is it about the Left that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge, or attribute good results to Trump even knowing they're earned and well deserved?

 

  

Edited by DEFCON
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that not everyone in the world hates President Elect Trump

Dow tops 19,000 as retailers lead stocks to new records
Marley Jay, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:23AM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:10AM EST

NEW YORK -- The Dow Jones industrial average crossed 19,000 for the first time as the stock market extended its reach further into record territory. The gains came a day after four major market indexes closed at all-times highs at the same time, something that hadn't happened since 1999.

Retailers are surging as discount store chains Dollar Tree and Burlington Stores raising their forecasts. Food producers Campbell Soup and Hormel are climbing after they reported strong quarterly results.

KEEPING SCORE: The Dow was up 24 points, or 0.1 per cent, to 18,892 as of 10:52 a.m. Earlier it went as high as 19,014. The Standard & Poor's 500 index picked up 2 points, or 0.1 per cent, to 2,200. The Nasdaq composite gained 12 points, or 0.2 per cent, to 5,381. The Russell 2000 index, which tracks smaller companies, rose 0.4 per cent. It's setting records as well and is trading higher for the 13th day in a row.

BARGAIN HUNTING: Shoppers continued to flock to discount stores, which has helped those retailers while hurting other brands. Dollar Tree raised its profit and sales forecasts after the chain reported solid results in the third quarter. Burlington Stores also raised its outlook after it posted a larger profit than analysts expected. Dollar Tree leaped $8.38, or 10.2 per cent, to $90.37 and Burlington Stores added $9.88, or 13.3 per cent, to $84.06. Competitor Dollar General gained $3.01, or 3.9 per cent, to $79.75.

SHINING: Jeweler Signet raised its outlook and its stock picked up $5.61, or 6.3 per cent, to $94.49. With Signet and other retailers like Urban Outfitters and Target making big gains, consumer stocks rose to all-time highs.

SNACK TIME: Campbell Soup's profit in its fiscal first quarter was better than expected thanks to lower expenses and better sales of snacks like Pepperidge Farm. Hormel, the maker of Spam, reported better results from its refrigerated foods business and its Jennie-O turkey unit. Hormel also gave solid guidance for the current fiscal year. Campbell Soup gained $1.77, or 3.2 per cent, to $56.81 and Hormel rose 57 cents, or 1.6 per cent, to $35.51.

OUCH: Medical supplier Patterson Cos. plunged to a three-year low. The company said its dental business struggled and that it ended an exclusive relationship with dental supplier Sirona that had lasted for about a decade. Its animal health business was hurt by weak prices for brand-name drugs. Patterson cuts its profit forecast and its shares dropped $9.35, or 19.7 per cent, to $38.16. Health care stocks took losses as medical device maker Medtronic sank $7, or 8.7 per cent, to $73.58 after it disclosed disappointing sales. Edwards Lifesciences sank $4.09, or 4.6 per cent, to $85.11.

INDUSTRIAL POWER: While the S&P 500 is at record highs, only one of its 11 industry sectors is doing the same. That's the industrial sector, which includes companies that make aircraft and engines, run railroads, and make other equipment. That index is up 6 per cent since the election, about twice as much as the broader market. Aerospace and defence companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were trading around record highs before the election and have continued to rise since then.

Boeing climbed $1.90, or 1.3 per cent, to $148.92 and General Dynamics advanced 87 cents to $169.30.

THIRSTY: Dr. Pepper Snapple Group said it will buy fruit drink maker Bai Brands for $1.7 billion. Bai Brands markets its drinks as having fewer calories than other brands and doesn't use artificial sweeteners. Dr. Pepper Snapple stock picked up $1.59, or 1.9 per cent, to $86.84

OIL: Benchmark U.S. crude dipped 25 cents to $47.99 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 8 cents to $48.98. The price of oil rose about 4 per cent Monday.

CURRENCIES: The dollar was little changed. It slipped Monday but has been trading around 13-year highs. It rose to 111.30 yen from 111.07 yen. The euro fell to $1.0595 from $1.0612.

BONDS: Bond prices slipped. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note edged up to 2.32 per cent from 2.31 per cent.

OVERSEAS: Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.8 per cent. France's CAC 40 added 0.7 per cent while the DAX in Germany was up 0.6 per cent. Japan's Nikkei 225 stock index finished 0.3 per cent higher. It dipped briefly following a powerful earthquake in northern Japan. The earthquake set off a small tsunami, but it appeared to cause only minor damage and injuries. South Korea's Kospi rose 0.9 per cent and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong climbed 1.4 per cent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is proving to be just another politician, and he hasn't even served a day in office. Wall St. is licking its chops at the notion of the naked emperor. Bluff & bluster with zero substance, just like all the other snakes in the "swamp". So much for that angry changey message millions bought into.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-clinton-email-1.3861895

Link to post
Share on other sites

acsidestick - ok, if we are making assumptions about why people voted the way they did and placing them "left" or "right", we will count all voter-eligible votes.

Assumptions:

We can count Johnson as being in the "right" camp. Stein is in the "left" camp, McMullin is soft "right".

I'll split the Write-ins 25/75 in favour of the "left", because I think it is reasonable to say that very few would write in a substitute for Trump while most would substitute anyone else for Hillary and couldn't vote for Trump.

Because "Others" would likely be anti-Clinton votes I will put them in the "left" camp.

Except for Trump, Clinton, Johnson & Stein votes, the divisions for the other categories are somewhat arbitrary and anyone can find reason to shift numbers - this attempt is justifiable and other lines can also be drawn. The differences don't make a difference...

Conclusions:

Total votes were 133,253,578 so far. I have seen totals as high as 135 million at the site linked below. All counting must be completed by December 09.

Under these assumptions, votes for the 'right' were 67,131,248, & for the 'left' were 66,122,330.

Of all votes processed thus far, the "right" received 1,008,918 more votes or 0.0076%.

Variations on a theme:

If we give everything to the "right" except the Clinton & Stein votes, the difference is 3026850 or 0.0227% and that is only 57% of the country speaking up.

Of the total votes counted/processed thus far, 50.38% were for the "right", & 49.62% were for the "left".

From the numbers according to the United States Election Project site, and their spreadsheet, the "Voter Eligible Population was 231,556,622, (ineligible votes are the non-citizen, prison, probation and parole population of 3,242,614), (now we know the number of felons, including the prison population, for the United States - about 10% of their population).

About 57.6% of eligible votes, actually voted.

Depending again upon changing numbers, 98,303,044, 42.4% of eligible voters remained silent regarding their wishes for their country.

This close, and it's really all tea leaves, isn't it? And Obama leaves with one of the highest popularity ratings ever, (so yes, it was "Clinton", not the Dems that lost the election).

So, within between eight one-thousandths and twenty-three one thousandths of a percent, half the voters have every reason to be disappointed and concerned, half the voters have their candidate elected, and half the country no right to say anything at all.

 

Hi DEFCON;

Re my comment, "As I say, Trump has no concept of what he is doing to the country"

Yes, I thought about that statement last night and it is indeed incorrect.

I think Donald Trump knows exactly what he is doing.

What I meant to say was, he's doing exactly what he said he'd do, I just don't think he comprehends the forces of division that he is unleashing.

Re my comment,

"People are much bolder now than they were prior to the election."

You ask, "in what ways?"

By reading, listening, observing the "timbre" of the reportage, which can always fool one, can't it!? ;)

From the Guardian on November 10:

Claims of hate crimes possibly linked to Trump's election reported across the US

Social media was rife with accounts of sometimes violent incidents of hate crimes targeted at Muslims, Latinos and African Americans after the election

Re your comment, " What is it about the Left that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge, or attribute good results to Trump even knowing they're earned and well deserved? "

Perhaps because they don't believe that Trump is the original causal object of such a trend?

I would much prefer a healthy, two-party system which sees compromise as a legitimate way of accomplishment in a complex political economy - hard lines, black-and-white thinking at such levels doesn't accomplish anything, it just creates a divide and a fence which is getting tougher to see over.

I think Trump is dangerous socially, economically and potentially historically in terms of the United States world position. But I like Trump's statement that he is going to create a new Glass-Steagal Act. But he's going to give his wealthy cronies complete access to the Oval Office, and a huge tax break to boot. He doesn't even pretend that it's Reagan's "trickle down".

If I may ask, what part of Trump do you see as positive and good for the country? This isn't a question about "Republicans", because, as we have seen, many are as anti-trump as most Democrats. But they all seem to be hanging their ethics and morals at ambition's door.

But my comments and questions are, and have been about Trump himself, and why people are starting to normalize this rogue and those proven bigots that he is gathering around him to form the next administration. What's so good about this and why are so many resistant to and dismissive of the critiques offered? Does this guy really appear to be "normal" to you?

What about the many critiques of "crony capitalism"? That Trump has refused to firewall himself against conflicts of interest, (see article below). Is this acceptable? The President must put the interests of the United States ahead of family and everything else. How can he possibly do that when he owes money to China and Germany, for example?

How is it possible to justify such things without utterly ignoring that they exist?

I think claims of "checks and balances" for a man like Trump are naive and very high risk in terms of normalization what this administration will be like. In short, this guy is thumbing his nose at the courts and everyone who tries to stop what he is doing. Checks and balances for for normal people - this guy is rogue.

For example:

 

Quote

Trump Says Any Conflicts Of Interest Were Priced Into Your Vote

It’s all the media’s fault, of course.

11/21/2016 11:22 pm ET | Updated 11 hours ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_5833b971e4b058ce7aacbb56

WASHINGTON ― Thirteen days after winning the presidential election, Donald Trump announced on Twitter that no one should worry about the potential conflicts of interest he could face over his range of global properties because everyone knew about them when they elected him. He blamed any questions of impropriety on the media for reporting on them.

The evening tweet from the president-elect reads: “Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!”

 
Quote

 

Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!

 

  •  

. . . .

Trump is responding to the parade of stories detailing his immense portfolio of potential conflicts of interest. He met with his Indian business partners one week after winning the presidency. He continues to hold a government lease for his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., even though the lease declares that it cannot be held by a government official. Last week, the hotel held an event to pitch its luxury rooms to foreign diplomats as a way to ingratiate their countries with the president-elect. And there have been reports about Ivanka Trump’s appearance at the meeting with Abe and her talk with Macri.

The New York Times further reported on Monday that Trump told British European Parliament member Nigel Farage, the former head of the right wing anti-immigration UK Independence Party, and other UKIP leaders that they drum up opposition to the kind of offshore wind farms that are proposed for construction near his golf course in Scotland. They did exactly that.

Andy Wigmore, a media consultant present when Trump spoke to Farage, told The New York Times, “He did not say he hated wind farms as a concept; he just did not like them spoiling the views.”

Trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bank of China, which is owned by the government of China. The Constitution’s emoluments clause states that no government official shall receive favorable payment from a foreign government, foreign government-owned company or foreign official without the consent of Congress. Trump also rents space in his Trump Tower, where he is managing his transition, to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, another government-owned bank.

He also owes hundreds of millions of dollars to Deutsche Bank, a privately held German bank. While the emoluments clause does not apply to payments to Deutsche Bank, there is a major potential conflict because the bank is facing a multibillion-dollar settlement with the Department of Justice over its illegal mortgage practices. Trump will soon be selecting the top leadership of the Department of Justice. There are also questions over whether Deutsche Bank will be able to survive the hefty settlement without government support. Will Trump save his lender?

Similar potential conflicts exist at the National Labor Relations Board, which Trump will also soon be able to staff. The independent labor regulatory agency ruled on Nov. 3 that Trump’s Las Vegas hotel had violated its workers rights to organize a union when it refused to recognize their affirmative vote. Trump’s hires at the NLRB will likely be colored by his ownership of properties with unionizing workers.

Technically, federal conflict-of-interest laws do not apply to the president. This does not mean that his business holdings do not manifest as conflicts of interest, just that he is not mandated to place his assets into an actual blind trust managed by an independent trustee. He has done no such thing. He has also failed to disclose his tax returns, the first elected president in nearly 60 years to not reveal them, which would provide insight into his investors and lenders.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) introduced legislation that would extend the federal conflict-of-interest laws to cover the president and vice president. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation to require all presidential candidates and the president to file their three most recent years of tax returns.

The Wall Street Journal has called on Trump to liquidate his business and put the proceeds into a true blind trust. His tweet clearly suggests he is not willing to give up control.

cont'd at  link provided above...

 

 

Edited by Don Hudson
Add link to Huffington Post article on Trump conflict of interest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.