Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:23 PM
 
34,274 posts, read 19,312,630 times
Reputation: 17256

Advertisements

Presidents are covered via the emolument clause of the constitution. Theres no conflict there...IF CONGRESS SAYS SO. Otherwise...there is.

I havent seen congress hold a vote yet, have you?

And folks...he isnt president yet. HE IS covered by those laws right now. Think about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Presidents are covered via the emolument clause of the constitution. Theres no conflict there...IF CONGRESS SAYS SO. Otherwise...there is.

I havent seen congress hold a vote yet, have you?

And folks...he isnt president yet. HE IS covered by those laws right now. Think about that.
If someone pays you a $1 to make a decision, and you do, but the law says that's okay... that doesn't change the fact you made a decision b/c someone paid you a $1 to do it.

Let's not get the law confused w/ the fact that our President is in a position to trade favors for money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
9,019 posts, read 14,246,248 times
Reputation: 11030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
you can all be sure that the left is going to beat this drum every single day for as long as TheDonald is president. This is a bout delegitimizing the man. It is the key to their access back to control of the government.


There is no other option for the left. For the next 4 years at least this is going to be the daily conversation. we will do this every single day at C-D. We will see this every single day on every single news outlet.


There will be calls for impeachment constantly because this is what PROGS do. This is the tool they have. They will not stop. period.
How does this differ from the last eight years in any way, shape or form?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:30 PM
 
Location: My House
34,937 posts, read 36,163,891 times
Reputation: 26547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
We knew what we voted for. We knew Trump was in the hotel/resort/casino business.

Hillary tried to conceal her pay-for-play organization. When caught, she tried to deny it. 100's of thousands of dollars per speech while still holding office?
Sooo... if Hillary had told everyone what her speaking fees were, this would matter?

Pretzel logic.

You may have known Trump was in the hotel/casino (barely, because nobody in a decent casino town trusts him to pay his debts) business, but did you know he'd keep right on running them while in office?

Surely not.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
The attacks on The Clinton Foundation were about foreign countries buying influence & favors from HC by donating money to her pet project. Conservatives point out that regardless if there is no evidence backing the pay-for-play accusations, the fact that other countries were able to give money to someone who had a hand in decisions that hurt or benefitted their country at least showed HC had poor judgment.

So what changed w/ Trump? Not only is he already indebted to foreign countries, he’s keeping himself and his family clearly involved in businesses that other countries can use to buy influence & favors…

Why are Conservatives so convinced that Trump will act unbiasedly, yet equally convinced that HC acted inappropriately when she was in the same position?
You're saying since the democrat party didn't hold Hillary responsible will the same thing happen to the republican party? We'll see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:36 PM
 
34,274 posts, read 19,312,630 times
Reputation: 17256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
You're saying since the democrat party didn't hold Hillary responsible will the same thing happen to the republican party? We'll see.
She lost the election didn't she? And this was one of the reasons. the perception of it-true or not.

The DNC should have treated Sanders equally instead of going all on for her though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:39 PM
 
20,421 posts, read 12,338,684 times
Reputation: 10206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
So what law did she break?

You're making up statutes that either don't exist or don't apply to her. She actually held the position. If she was breaking the conflict of interest laws, she would have been charged accordingly.

So now that we've gotten that false narrative out of the way... please answer how a foreign country putting money into one politician's pocket is considered corruption for Clinton, but not Trump?

I'm not even going to include the fact that at least Clinton Foundation donations don't actually go into the Clinton bank account, unlike payments to Trump's businesses.
first of all, suggesting that the sitting democrat president would let the current democrat candidate for president be charged with a federal crime just defies logic. that was never going to happen.


second the charge of pay to play if true would be a direct conflict of interest. did that happen? we assume it is the case based on your comments in this thread. that assumption is "for the sake of argument"


Now how does that relate to Trump's divestment? again we are assuming that Trump as president 1. does not divest. 2. Has some business dealing that can be proven to involve someone he has dealt with in his role as President.




See here is the thing. In the first case, it is against the law. a SecState would be in violation and would upon conviction go to jail.


In the second case, It is not against the law. In fact, by US CODE it is directly and specifically stated that a president and a vice president cannot be charged with conflict of interest.


so these two things are not the same. erego, the answer to your question. Based on federal statute, is NO.


got any more silly questions that we all know the answer to but you want to ask because it makes you giggle because you think you got you a gotcha for nonprogs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
You're saying since the democrat party didn't hold Hillary responsible will the same thing happen to the republican party? We'll see.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats did. What matters is what Conservatives did, said, and thought.

You have Trump in nearly the same position Hillary was in, and you trumpeted your corruption allegations. Since you're not doing it now, are you admitting those allegations were always a BS argument...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
first of all, suggesting that the sitting democrat president would let the current democrat candidate for president be charged with a federal crime just defies logic. that was never going to happen.
Nonsense point. The fact that you need to resort to this shows how weak your argument is.


Quote:
second the charge of pay to play if true would be a direct conflict of interest. did that happen? we assume it is the case based on your comments in this thread. that assumption is "for the sake of argument"


Now how does that relate to Trump's divestment? again we are assuming that Trump as president 1. does not divest. 2. Has some business dealing that can be proven to involve someone he has dealt with in his role as President.
It doesn't matter if there was pay-for-play for Clinton. Conservatives said that it was a thing based on no evidence, but rather the fact that foreign countries were able to funnel money to her while she was in office. They can do the same thing to Trump. So if your argument was that by the nature of her position and what other countries could do, then logically Trump should have the same accusations lobbed at him.



Quote:
See here is the thing. In the first case, it is against the law. a SecState would be in violation and would upon conviction go to jail.


In the second case, It is not against the law. In fact, by US CODE it is directly and specifically stated that a president and a vice president cannot be charged with conflict of interest.

so these two things are not the same. erego, the answer to your question. Based on federal statute, is NO.
Stop trying to argue that b/c it’s not illegal, it didn’t technically happen. It’s not illegal for someone with diplomatic immunity to punch you in the face. That doesn’t change the fact that you have a broken nose from a French ambassador sucker punching you!
A President or Veep can’t be CHARGED w/ whatever statute you’re claiming. That doesn’t change the fact that if N. Korea says they’ll spend $1M/day at the Trump resort in exchange for some favors, that our President was influenced to make a decision based on someone else paying him.

Quote:
got any more silly questions that we all know the answer to but you want to ask because it makes you giggle because you think you got you a gotcha for nonprogs?
I’m still waiting for you to present an argument that I can’t shoot down…

Last edited by EddieB.Good; 12-15-2016 at 03:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 03:57 PM
 
198 posts, read 260,924 times
Reputation: 325
Trump's Chumps are sheep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top