Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Swastakowey wrote: Wikipedia has this as merely claimed. Might wanna check these things. Anybody can claim anything at the end of the day.
It was claimed by someone who knew Trump and confirmed by Trump (before later being denied by Trump, as damage control).
It was denied in 1999.
Donald Trump: "I never said it. I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired—we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff... This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense... I've never said anything like it, ever." – Meet the Press (24 October, 1999)
It takes like 10 seconds to find this stuff man come on.
There is nothing official that says he confirmed that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 09:28:31
For the record, he's less effective than he likes to pretend - he's got multiple bankruptcies in his past. What he's very good at is stepping back and letting the people around him take the fall while he recovers, which is extremely worrying when he just took charge of your country.
He's also older than Clinton and had his own health vouched for by a man who's clearly The Dude's awful cousin, although he's certainly louder than she is. I can see why he's pictured as 'higher energy'.
Oh we're well aware of that. Trump tried many things over here too (the golf course for example, a superb example of bullying another nation into submission through economics). But as I understand it, bankruptcy doesn't disqualify you from business over there the same way it does here, and is instead a robust mechanism to enable covert asset stripping if handled well. While I wouldn't invest in him, I certainly wouldn't want to compete with him in any field, as he's proven he can game the system to his advantage. I'd absolutely want that quality in my own ruler to that degree, assuming i'd benefit from it too!
As for age, his bright orange face and Truly Splendid Hair make it non-noticable. Without a doubt why he did it - to present a strong impression of something negative but one he had control over. Clinton at her best on the other hand looks like Emperor Palpatine from the prequels.
There's no reason to assume we're going to benefit from him. In all honesty, he's probably going to try and use the office of the presidency to self-aggrandize as much as possible while letting the people around him make the decisions.
Swastakowey wrote: Wikipedia has this as merely claimed. Might wanna check these things. Anybody can claim anything at the end of the day.
It was claimed by someone who knew Trump and confirmed by Trump (before later being denied by Trump, as damage control).
It was denied in 1999.
Donald Trump: "I never said it. I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired—we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff... This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense... I've never said anything like it, ever." – Meet the Press (24 October, 1999)
It takes like 10 seconds to find this stuff man come on.
There is nothing official that says he confirmed that.
Donald Trump denies saying stuff that he's put in his own Twitter feed.
I know it's a he-said she-said, but he likes to get into those, and he follows the same pattern every time - deny everything, followed by personal attacks. It also fits in with other things he's said and done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 09:30:42
O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.”
Two years later, when he was seeking the reform party nomination for president, Trump changed his tune. “I’ve never said anything like that,” he told Tim Russert on Meet The Press.
So he confirmed it initially, then decided that it looked bad for his political career and denied the whole thing. And really, is it even surprising that the person who was so prominent in the "Obama is not a citizen" nonsense and got into serious legal trouble over accusations of refusing to rent property to black people might have said something else racist?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 09:32:00
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.”
Two years later, when he was seeking the reform party nomination for president, Trump changed his tune. “I’ve never said anything like that,” he told Tim Russert on Meet The Press.
So he confirmed it initially, then decided that it looked bad for his political career and denied the whole thing.
Well I just read the playboy interview in question:
"Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true."
That's pretty vague and doesn't confirm anything specific let alone the racist comment. He was of course talking about an entire book in one senance off hand. Which is exactly why it's not attributed to him.
Im sure there are other things you can find that are confirmed quotes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And really, is it even surprising that the person who was so prominent in the "Obama is not a citizen" nonsense and got into serious legal trouble over accusations of refusing to rent property to black people might have said something else racist?
No? Why assume? Assuming is a stupid thing to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 09:42:54
Peregrine wrote: And, again, you're leaving out important details.
So are you, in claiming that all Trump supporters supported his racism/misogyny/whatever. Why are you suddenly so concerned with nuance? Simply because you realized the argument could be used against you?
1) Obama may have had those personal beliefs, but his policy record was in favor of LGBT rights. He voted against a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman, called (in 2008) for a repeal of DOMA, opposed California's ban on gay marriage, and supported civil unions that would include the same legal rights as marriage. And Obama did not advocate against gay marriage, he only stated his personal beliefs because he was asked directly. Trump, on the other hand, promises to back up his racist beliefs with policy actions and has made them an important element of his campaign.
So you're saying that it's okay to not believe what he repeatedly said on the campaign trail? That...huh. That seems contradictory to what you've been saying for God knows how many pages.
2) Obama's opponents were even worse. Obama's weak support of LGBT rights was the best we were going to get in 2008, so if that's an issue you cared about you voted for Obama as the lesser of the two evils. The only alternative to Obama (outside of third parties with no hope of winning) was to vote for the party that advocated complete bans on gay marriage. But this wasn't the case in 2016. Clinton wasn't going around saying "Trump isn't racist enough, I'm going to kill all the Mexicans instead of deporting them".
All of that is irrelevant. The argument you're advancing is that if people voted for Trump, they supported his positions. Extraneous factors haven't mattered to you until you started having to justify your vote for someone who was against gay marriage.
No, it's not at all like that justification. The "lesser of two evils" argument is that Obama was the best choice on LGBT issues. It was not a case of saying "screw gay people, Obama is promising me free health care" like it is with Trump. If you cared about racism you had a better option: Clinton. But instead people decided "the racism is ok as long as his economic policy is what I want" (or similar equivalents with other issues).
And that may possibly be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read. "A lesser of two evils argument is only valid if you support progressive policy positions; it cannot be used to support conservative ones," is essentially what it boils down to.
A progressive running on a wildest-dreams progressive platform - $30/hour minimum wage, taxpayer-funded abortions, cutting carbon emissions to -50%, taxing the rich at 99%, guaranteeing admission and tuition-free college to minorities and women, etc. - except for being opposed to gun control would capture progressive votes in a landslide. That would not mean we could conclude that progressives either don't support gun control or don't care about it, as you have; it would simply mean the good of what they get outweighs the bad.
Yet, for some reason, this argument is not allowed to be applied to Trump (or any other Republican, as far as I can tell). So...keep up that fair-minded analysis, I guess? I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish aside from displaying the vacuousness of hyper-partisan arguments.
Sigh. If you're not going to respond to what I actually said instead of straw man versions, despite me explaining multiple times what my argument is, I don't see any point in having any further conversation about this. What I said is there, and anyone who cares can read it and see how you're distorting both my argument and the situation with Obama and gay marriage.
That would not mean we could conclude that progressives either don't support gun control or don't care about it, as you have; it would simply mean the good of what they get outweighs the bad.
No, it absolutely would mean that progressives either support gun ownership or consider failure on gun control an acceptable price to pay for all of those things. And conservatives would be entirely justified in saying "you voted for this person, you are ok with their gun control policies". This of course wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, as plenty of progressives would concede without issue that gun control is not their #1 priority. There would be no hiding from that aspect of the vote, unlike how Trump supporters want to pretend that a vote for Trump is not a statement that his racism/misogyny/etc are an acceptable price to pay for his other positions.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 10:16:04
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The argument that Peregrine is making is that Trump is arguing that political action should be taken based on racist ideals, whereas Obama adopted a "live-and-let-live" stance on gay marriage. While Obama may himself have felt that he did not like gay marriage, he wasn't running his campaign in opposition to it. One is claiming that he'd use his power as a public figure to crack down on Mexican immigrants, the other is arguing as an individual that he'd personally prefer "marriage" to be between a man and a woman. There's a world of difference between making a statement as an individual and making a statement in the capacity of a presidential candidate.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The argument that Peregrine is making is that Trump is arguing that political action should be taken based on racist ideals, whereas Obama adopted a "live-and-let-live" stance on gay marriage. While Obama may himself have felt that he did not like gay marriage, he wasn't running his campaign in opposition to it. One is claiming that he'd use his power as a public figure to crack down on Mexican immigrants, the other is arguing as an individual that he'd personally prefer "marriage" to be between a man and a woman. There's a world of difference between making a statement as an individual and making a statement in the capacity of a presidential candidate.
And also the fact that Trump vs. Clinton was a choice of "grab her by the " and "a taco truck on every corner" vs. "that stuff is not ok", while Obama on gay marriage was a choice of "personally opposed but voting for civil unions" vs. "BURN IN HELL FILTHY SINNERS". So yes, I will admit that I considered voting for a weak ally on LGBT issues instead of a sworn enemy to be an acceptable price to pay for things like healthcare reform, but that's not at all comparable to the Trump situation.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The argument that Peregrine is making is that Trump is arguing that political action should be taken based on racist ideals, whereas Obama adopted a "live-and-let-live" stance on gay marriage.
That's an inaccurate argument, though.
There's a world of difference between making a statement as an individual and making a statement in the capacity of a presidential candidate.
Obama was speaking as a presidential candidate in all three of the quotes I posted. They were during the campaign, they were official campaign interviews or events.
Peregrine wrote: And also the fact that Trump vs. Clinton was a choice of "grab her by the " and "a taco truck on every corner" vs. "that stuff is not ok", while Obama on gay marriage was a choice of "personally opposed but voting for civil unions" vs. "BURN IN HELL FILTHY SINNERS". So yes, I will admit that I considered voting for a weak ally on LGBT issues instead of a sworn enemy to be an acceptable price to pay for things like healthcare reform, but that's not at all comparable to the Trump situation.
Not by your metrics.
Much of the country doesn't seem to use your metrics, though. That people had principles that outweighed their objection to racism does not mean they supported racism. The fact that you're unwilling to admit that plainly suggests this is just a suspect (and, frankly, pointless, 'cause Dakka couldn't matter less) attempt to come up with a self-serving method of defining everyone who voted differently from you as a racist, or at least condoning racism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 10:51:32
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The argument that Peregrine is making is that Trump is arguing that political action should be taken based on racist ideals, whereas Obama adopted a "live-and-let-live" stance on gay marriage.
That's an inaccurate argument, though.
No, it's not. Obama didn't ever argue that he was actually going to use his power as President to push against gay marriage. Trump made that promise a cornerstone of his campaign.
Obama was speaking as a presidential candidate in all three of the quotes I posted. They were during the campaign, they were official campaign interviews or events.
Perhaps I expressed myself a bit clumsily. What I meant to say was that there's a world of difference between talking about what one would personally prefer and what one is going to use the power of being President for, i.e. the difference between one's personal view versus one's political view as President.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
No, it's not. Obama didn't ever argue that he was actually going to use his power as President to push against gay marriage. Trump made that promise a cornerstone of his campaign.
Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a cornerstone of his campaign. That is not racist.
Perhaps I expressed myself a bit clumsily. What I meant to say was that there's a world of difference between talking about what one would personally prefer and what one is going to use the power of being President for, i.e. the difference between one's personal view versus one's political view as President.
That's disingenuous. Those quotes were not followed by a, "...but as President, I'll fully support gay marriage," that I excised. Claiming that Obama was just speaking as a person while campaigning and giving speeches in which he iterated and reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage does not meet the bar of credibility.
Well, it looks like Trump's campaign talk turned out to be well...campaign talk!
He's back tracking over ACA
They say he's ditched the idea of prosecuting Clinton (SCOTUS would never overturn United States Vs. Nixon, anyway)
and far from "draining the swamp" his cabinet is likely to be stuffed with Washington insiders, crackpots, time servers, and establishment stooges....
Crisis? What crisis?
It's business as normal.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I know Trump didn't ask the KKK for support, and he rejected their endorsement, but even so, the reason he attracted the support of the KKK is because Trump's anti-illegal-immigration position was presented in the rhetoric of racial and religious prejudice (Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, etc.)
No, it's not. Obama didn't ever argue that he was actually going to use his power as President to push against gay marriage. Trump made that promise a cornerstone of his campaign.
Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a cornerstone of his campaign. That is not racist.
No, the "...because they're rapists and murderers!" motivation for why he wants to crack down on illegal immigration is.
Perhaps I expressed myself a bit clumsily. What I meant to say was that there's a world of difference between talking about what one would personally prefer and what one is going to use the power of being President for, i.e. the difference between one's personal view versus one's political view as President.
That's disingenuous. Those quotes were not followed by a, "...but as President, I'll fully support gay marriage," that I excised. Claiming that Obama was just speaking as a person while campaigning and giving speeches in which he iterated and reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage does not meet the bar of credibility.
When he's simultaneously opposed the DOMA act, sure it does.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I know Trump didn't ask the KKK for support, and he rejected their endorsement, but even so, the reason he attracted the support of the KKK is because Trump's anti-illegal-immigration position was presented in the rhetoric of racial and religious prejudice (Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, etc.)
I'm someone who doesn't believe an anti-immigration policy in and of itself is racist let alone an anti-illegal-immigration one. As I'm someone who isn't American and didn't follow all the debates and speeches, can you link me to where Trump forwarded anti-illegal-immigration in a way you felt was racist?
I know Trump didn't ask the KKK for support, and he rejected their endorsement, but even so, the reason he attracted the support of the KKK is because Trump's anti-illegal-immigration position was presented in the rhetoric of racial and religious prejudice (Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, etc.)
Nigel Farage faced off against Bob Geldof on the Thames, but nobody would suggest that was indicative of the general state of British politics
Trump got less support than Mitt Romney, and 100 million Americans stayed away on Tuesday.
Trump mania sweeping the nation is greatly exaggerated in my book and attacking crackpots and racists like the KKK is not the dawn of a Fascist America IMO.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
QUOTE: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This was in his speech when he announced his run for the Republican nomination at Trump Tower Atrium in Manhattan on June 16, 2015.
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 12:16:45
Kilkrazy wrote: QUOTE: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This was in his speech when he announced his run for the Republican nomination at Trump Tower Atrium in Manhattan on June 16, 2015.
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the USA has been here before with nativism and anti-immigrant rhetoric.Today it's Mexicans, years ago it was the Irish and the Chinese. Perhaps we're in the middle of another one of those cycles that occur every 100 years or or something? It's hard to tell.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 12:26:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.
Kilkrazy wrote: QUOTE: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This was in his speech when he announced his run for the Republican nomination at Trump Tower Atrium in Manhattan on June 16, 2015.
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
That's interesting. My somewhat-outsider analysis: Was Trump talking about Mexican immigration in general or Mexican illegal immigration in that context? To debunk it you'd have to look at the crime rate of that specific demographic, not overall immigration. Obviously if you're mostly legally importing wealthy foreign students in to Universities is going to give a different outcome to illegals from low socio-economic circumstances wandering across the border.
I think the Forbes article is a bit off in using lack of correlation between illegal immigrant numbers and overall crime as a debunking point. I don't think anyone is silly enough to think ALL crime comes from illegal immigrants, so a falling overall crime rate isn't necessarily indicative of falling crimes inflicted by illegal immigrants.
My conclusion: Trump's statements are only racist if they aren't true and the Forbes' article doesn't provide compelling evidence that they aren't true. But still Trump shouldn't have said it without readily available data backing it up. He didn't say all Mexicans are those things so I don't think you can outright call it racist, rather he said Mexico aren't sending their best (by comparison you might look at an Asian or European country sending quality students on exchange programs or foreign families setting up local stores in communities).
I think this has been part of the left's problems. Something is said that could be taken as racist and people just cry "racist" instead of actually presenting a solid debate, the Forbes article attempts to provide a debate but lacks the substance to put it to bed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 12:49:19
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.
I never assumed that, I have never claimed it, so there is something we do agree on.
Clearly everyone who voted for Trump isn't racist. Equally clearly, some of them are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 12:51:43
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.
I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.
Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.
All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.
The problem isn't that all Trump voters are racists. It's that the racists and bigots who voted for Trump now assume everyone else agrees with them. And Trump and his other supporters aren't doing anything to counter this.
We've gotten to the point where the black students of UPenn were all threatened with mass lynchings. Why doesn't the President Elect, who has apparently wrested control of his Twitter acccount back to chilling results, condemned this?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 13:08:42
malamis wrote: But as I understand it, bankruptcy doesn't disqualify you from business over there the same way it does here, and is instead a robust mechanism to enable covert asset stripping if handled well. While I wouldn't invest in him, I certainly wouldn't want to compete with him in any field, as he's proven he can game the system to his advantage. I'd absolutely want that quality in my own ruler to that degree, assuming i'd benefit from it too!
But you wouldn't benefit from it. The carefully managed bankruptcy-for-advantage and asset stripping only benefits the wealthy investors behind the plan, the common employees lose their jobs and get nothing in return. That's a great person to have as your leader if you're a fellow wealthy businessperson engaged in similar ruthless pursuit of profit. It's a terrible person to have as your leader if you're a poor person in a former manufacturing region struggling to survive because people like Trump moved your former job to China.
Peregrine...bankruptcy *is* an advantage for anyone who uses it, not simply for the wealthy.
It's like you are blaming someone for legally using the laws to help them out of dire straits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 14:31:30
Admit that you're trying to defend someone who's got almost no relevant credentials to be secretary of education.
Nope.
Why? People can do their job while holding weird beliefs.
You argued that Ben Carson was qualified to be secretary of education because he's studied neurosurgery. How does that make him competent to know how teaching works? He's brilliant in a field that has nothing to do with teaching others.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Trump’s deal with the federal government gave him control of a taxpayer-owned landmark for his Washington, DC hotel — but it also creates a conflict of interest that experts say may be impossible to resolve. For the first time, the General Services Administration acknowledged the potential conflict and said it plans to discuss it with the Trump team.
For the first time, federal officials have acknowledged a potential conflict of interest that faces incoming president Donald Trump over his high-profile hotel deal with the United States government. And the federal agency that’s involved wants to talk to Trump’s transition team about it before he takes the oath of office.
In 2012, the General Services Administration agreed to lease the Old Post Office Building — a landmark building just blocks from the White House — to Trump’s organization so that the mogul could turn it into a luxury hotel. In the complicated 109-page lease, Trump is required to pay the GSA $3 million a year plus a portion of his revenue, and he has to abide by a complex set of restrictions regarding what he can do and how he can build.
But once Trump becomes president, he will have authority over the GSA and will be able to fire its administrator at will, raising profound issues of a conflict.
Questioned about that conflict, a GSA spokesperson sent a statement to BuzzFeed News: “Prior to Mr. Trump taking the oath of office, GSA plans to coordinate with the President-elect’s transition team to allow a plan to be put in place to identify and address any potential conflict of interest relating to the Old Post Office building.”
Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks did not respond to emailed questions about the matter.
It’s been extensively reported that Trump often often does not pay his bills, and this has been a characteristic business practice for decades. If Trump’s company stops paying rent to the US government, shortchanges the taxpayer on revenue sharing, or harms the priceless landmark in any way, it is the GSA that would have to enforce the lease.
“Under the contract the only way the GSA can enforce rights is by litigating against him,” said Professor Steven L. Schooner, who teaches federal contracting law at George Washington University Law School. “Is the GSA going to litigate against the president?” Schooner pointed out that the GSA will be at a massive disadvantage in any dealings with the Trump company.
“Imagine the poor GSA employee that has to negotiate that annual sum with the president’s daughter or son,” he said.
As BuzzFeed News has previously reported, Trump won control of the Old Post Office Building in a highly unusual process. His company made representations to the government about its architect and financial backing to beat out competitors from better known hotel chains, and then reversed itself once it won the right to build the hotel.
He gave his children a share in the property for free. And court records show that he had two sets of revenue projections for the deal.
Peter Smirniotopoulos, an adjunct professor of real estate at George Washington University School of Business, said that the GSA is “clearly not going to take enforcement action against a company founded and set up by the person who is now the president of the United States!”
Kenneth Gross, an ethics attorney at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom said it is a bad situation that creates a potential for conflict, but he points out that the President is specifically exempt from conflict-of-interest laws that apply to other government officials.
Trump and three of his children — Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr. — own the lease and manage the hotel through a web of holding companies. Trump’s children and a lawyer have told news organizations that Trump will put his assets in a blind trust and that the businesses will be managed by his children. Ethics experts contend that such a blind trust would not solve Trump’s conflicts: His properties are well known to him, so the trust would not be truly blind, and his children, who would manage the hotel, have interests directly allied with his.
To truly resolve the conflict, Smirniotopoulos said, they would have to divest. Or, he said, Trump and his children could sell their holdings in the management company that runs the company, and then put their passive ownership interest in a genuinely blind trust managed by an independent trustee.
Schooner, the professor at George Washington University, said the GSA should just breach the contract and break the lease, even if Trump sues the government. But for the president to remain in business with the government in such a glaring way creates a major problem, he argued. “If this is the world we live in now, one where there is no principle or rules, just tell me that,” he said, “But if we are going to be a nation of rules, this is a horrible, horrible situation.”
Trump faces other potential conflicts of interest.
As BuzzFeed has reported, Trump mortgaged the federal lease to Deutsche Bank, a German bank that is a frequent lender to him. The US government is reportedly seeking to recover $14 billion from the bank to settle old mortgage securities cases.
Meanwhile Trump has himself said that his tax returns are being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. The auditors will now face the fact that the man whose taxes they are reviewing is the most powerful in the world, and can easily replace their boss.
The building issue doesn't really strike one as being anything insurmountable.
There's existing provisions to take care of POTUS stocks, investments etc etc
Donald Trump campaigned for president as a savvy billionaire who would apply his business acumen to improving the U.S. economy, cutting taxes for Americans and negotiating better trade deals.
But his vast, complicated network of businesses under the Trump Organization, including numerous foreign investments and debts, could create unprecedented conflicts of interest when he takes the oath of office as U.S. president in January, government ethics experts said.
Federal law does not prohibit the president from being involved in private business while in office, even though members of Congress and lower-ranking executive branch officials are subject to strict conflict-of-interest rules. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, quietly managed his broadcasting businesses despite insisting publicly that he had ceased all involvement, according to his biographer, Robert Caro.
"There are no legal restrictions, no legal requirements," said Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
But most presidents in recent decades have voluntarily placed their personal assets, including property and financial holdings, in blind trusts overseen by independent advisers to avoid any appearance of impropriety, experts said. Under a blind trust, the owner has no say or knowledge in how the assets are managed.
President Barack Obama was one exception, but his investments are mostly in broad-based index funds and U.S. Treasury notes with little chance of conflicts.
Trump's businesses include licensing deals, hotels and golf courses around the world. During the campaign, he filed a 104-page financial disclosure statement, as required by law, that showed he had financial interests in more than 500 entities with names like China Trademark LLC and DT Marks Qatar LLC but had few details.
BLIND TRUST
While plenty of wealthy men have been president, no one has ascended to the White House with such a complex array of assets.
Trump's spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on how he planned to manage his businesses while he was in the White House.
During the campaign, Trump did say he would likely transfer day-to-day operations to his children. But experts in government ethics said that would do little to insulate Trump.
"That presumably frees some time up for him to be the president, but it doesn't do anything to clear the conflicts of interest," said Kenneth Gross, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who has counseled high-ranking political appointees on ethics laws. "His family's interests, his children's interests, are co-existent with his own."
The nature of Trump's businesses, Gross said, makes a blind trust all but meaningless – even if he were inclined to shift control of his empire from his family, an idea he has rejected.
Gross advised Michael Bloomberg, a New York billionaire businessman, when he became mayor of New York City. Bloomberg stepped away from day-to-day operations at his data and media company, Bloomberg LP, and donated all terminals that were used by city agencies to avoid any impression of profiting from public funds.
Some of the potential problems for the Republican president-elect are obvious. One of his latest ventures, a luxury hotel in Washington just blocks from the White House, leases its property from the U.S. government, putting Trump on both sides of any landlord-tenant disputes.
Others are more opaque. Trump has licensing deals and diverse real estate holdings in numerous countries that could benefit from foreign government subsidies or tax breaks. Companies in which he holds an interest owe hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to foreign banks that are subject to U.S. regulations, such as Deutsche Bank and Bank of China, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
His properties include hotels in countries like Turkey, Uruguay, the Philippines and South Korea, and golf courses in the United Arab Emirates, Ireland and Britain.
Conflicts of interest could stem, for example, from countries trying to influence policies by doing business with any of his companies or even his children. His daughter Ivanka has a line of fashion products, which along with other Trump-branded items are made in countries like China.
Trump has accused China of currency manipulation and threatened to put tariffs on its imports.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF TRUMP INC. DEALS?
Trump's opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, faced criticism during the campaign over the Clinton Foundation, the charity founded by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
That was despite an ethics agreement that Hillary Clinton signed in 2009 in order to become Obama's secretary state that was designed to ensure donors could not sway U.S. foreign policy. Under the deal, the State Department was allowed to review any new contributions from foreign governments.
Unlike Clinton, however, Trump is not answerable to anyone else as president. And he has already shown himself willing to blur the lines between campaigning and marketing, holding events at his own properties and touting his companies during speeches.
Given the high-profile properties that bear his name, a blind trust would do little to help his case, experts said.
"You can't put a golf course in a blind trust; it would be pointless," said Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer and an expert on government ethics. "The idea behind a blind trust is that it's blind – you don't know what assets are held."
The only unassailable solution, experts said, would be for Trump to sell off his businesses and place the proceeds in a blind trust.
With no legal requirements, Trump's actions as president are only subject to the will of the voters or to built-in checks and balances like Congressional oversight.
The potential for conflicts is exacerbated by the lack of publicly known details about Trump's holdings. Even his net worth is unclear. Trump has boasted of more than $10 billion in wealth, but financial magazines have estimated his fortune at less than half that.
He has refused to release his tax returns, breaking with decades of presidential campaign tradition, and legal experts said he is under no obligation to do so as president.
His dealings with foreign governments are thus largely unknown. He will likely face scrutiny of policy decisions that affect countries where he is known to have business interests, said Bookbinder.
This does bother me... but, I'm not sure there's anything we can do to force Trump to mitigate conflicts of interests.
That's simply because the nature of his business and how his kids are likely going to run his companies.
I can see it end up something close like what NY Mayor Bloomberg did... he had obvious conflicts of interests over the years.
One thing that we haven't discussed...
Trump has very VISIBLE holdings all over the world... they're extremelysoft targets for bad guys to disrupt.
Admit that you're trying to defend someone who's got almost no relevant credentials to be secretary of education.
Nope.
Why? People can do their job while holding weird beliefs.
Not when those weird beliefs are basically "The magic man in the sky did it" and when the job is "overseeing the education of children in the United States".
" and "a taco truck on every corner" vs. "that stuff is not ok", while Obama on gay marriage was a choice of "personally opposed but voting for civil unions" vs. "BURN IN HELL FILTHY SINNERS". So yes, I will admit that I considered voting for a weak ally on LGBT issues instead of a sworn enemy to be an acceptable price to pay for things like healthcare reform, but that's not at all comparable to the Trump situation.
