It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump Says Any Conflicts Of Interest Were Priced Into Your Vote

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I honestly don't care about Trump's conflicts of interest. His business interests are a known commodity, and they mostly revolve around the properties he owns. Potential conflicts of interest that are fairly transparent are preferable to hidden conflicts of interest, based on who purchased influence at the Clinton Foundation.


you do know that Trump is appointing the very same people into the various branches of government that are assigned to oversee his business interests, right?


Hmmm no. He's not.




posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

There is a Department of Hotels and Resorts? Is this another czar Obama created? A Department of Golf and Leisure? I am sure there would be one of those will all of the golf Barack played.

Are these the folks you are talking about?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

As an American, before July 2015, all I knew of The Donald was Mar Largo, Trump Tower New York, Trump Vegas property, aware of the Art of The Deal book, a couple Apprentice shows, and his marriages.


While American voters largely know Trump from his American real-estate properties and his stint as a reality network television star,

source

After July 2015 I read in the media about


More than 100 Trump companies have done business in 18 countries. One extraordinary conflict of interest is an effort by eight mysterious Trump companies established on the eve of Trump’s campaign to develop luxury real estate projects in Saudi Arabia—a country that Trump explicitly said he hopes to protect as president.

The Trump organization also has business deals or properties in Scotland, Azerbaijan and Uruguay. He has marketing deals in Turkey, the Philippines, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates. The Bank of China is a lender to at least one of Trump’s properties. Representatives of his organization carry the Trump brand to dozens of other countries on a regular basis—raising the distinct possibility that Trump’s business brand will essentially be promoted right alongside the Trump White House and American national interests in many of these places. The Trump organization, for instance, describes the role of his son, Donald Jr., as business development and acquisitions that range “from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia, the Middle East to South America, (and) mainland China.”
.....
Those Indian executives, however, have told Indian newspapers that they had been discussing the possibility of expanding their business deals with the Trump organization now that he was the President-elect, the Times reported.


and now, Argentina....

So Trump continuously has called the media dishonest, corrupt, crooked. Some of his vocal supporters heard that and show their support by using their preferred Nazi term, Lugenpresse, "lying press".



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I honestly don't care about Trump's conflicts of interest. His business interests are a known commodity, and they mostly revolve around the properties he owns. Potential conflicts of interest that are fairly transparent are preferable to hidden conflicts of interest, based on who purchased influence at the Clinton Foundation.


you do know that Trump is appointing the very same people into the various branches of government that are assigned to oversee his business interests, right?


Hmmm no. He's not.


I think they must be getting info from fake news sites...



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So he's basically talking to the media and the American public like an abuser: "You knew about this before and you still got into a relationship with me and so you shouldn't bring it up".

Thank you Trump supporters for dragging me into your dysfunctional relationship with this psycho. Now the rest of us have to deal with your daddy issues and/or abusive partner baggage that you so clearly haven't dealt with.



huh? what does domestic violence have to do with anything? terrible analogy. I mean by your own analogy you are saying that abusing someone is perfectly ok until you get into a relationship.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Correct. Once the press, the media, were on his trail, he attempted to throw them and their followers of the trail by calling them "dishonest", "corrupt", and "crooked". He never used the term lugenpresse himself, some of his vocal supporters translated what he said into the Nazi term.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

I've personally been called a lot worse. I am sure the MSM can handle it....they have probably been called a lot worse as well.

Anywho...the numbers that were shown of bad vs good press for Trump and the same for Clinton show that what he said was correct so I am not too concerned about him calling them out on it.

What some of his supporters translated that into has nothing to do with him. I am sure there are PLENTY of loons on both sides that have said many things about the others.

The one I am most concerned about right now is the current racial tension that the past 8 years have given rise to with it being ok to call all whites racist for some reason now and that anyone other than whites is not able to be racist. That is something we should ALL be concerned with.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The one I am most concerned about right now is the current racial tension that the past 8 years have given rise to with it being ok to call all whites racist for some reason now and that anyone other than whites is not able to be racist. That is something we should ALL be concerned with.


I can help you bridge the gap here: my son says that discriminating against white folks isn't racism, but it is discrimination. He says only black people can be treated racially. He's no fool...he's a master candidate and well educated. He's just been miseducated and led to believe that "racism" has a definition that is different than what the rest of us agree it is.

"Racism" has become "discrimination against black people" among the people you are talking about. And they didn't bother to send out the memo to the rest of us uneducated plebes.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well apparently Trump has answered the question for us all..

"The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest,”
Trump said in an interview with New York Times editors and writers.

www.politico.com...

Nixon once said that anything a President does is technically legal.

Let's see how the next few years turn out.


edit on 22-11-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The one I am most concerned about right now is the current racial tension that the past 8 years have given rise to with it being ok to call all whites racist for some reason now and that anyone other than whites is not able to be racist. That is something we should ALL be concerned with.


I can help you bridge the gap here: my son says that discriminating against white folks isn't racism, but it is discrimination. He says only black people can be treated racially. He's no fool...he's a master candidate and well educated. He's just been miseducated and led to believe that "racism" has a definition that is different than what the rest of us agree it is.

"Racism" has become "discrimination against black people" among the people you are talking about. And they didn't bother to send out the memo to the rest of us uneducated plebes.


Well that makes sense.

I have always liked these quotes:



“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell




“What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is what can you make people believe you have done.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle


They kind of speak to the heart of what I believe. If enough people say something for long enough then it becomes truth regardless of how untruthful it is.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I can help you bridge the gap here: my son says that discriminating against white folks isn't racism, but it is discrimination. He says only black people can be treated racially. He's no fool...he's a master candidate and well educated. He's just been miseducated and led to believe that "racism" has a definition that is different than what the rest of us agree it is.

"Racism" has become "discrimination against black people" among the people you are talking about. And they didn't bother to send out the memo to the rest of us uneducated plebes.


In an academic context (which most professors are using, as well as your son most likely) racism has a slightly different definition from the general use which is taking actions against someone based on race. Racism in this context also includes the limitation that it's the actions of the group in power against the groups not in power. This means that in the US as it is now, you cannot be racist against white people because they hold most of the power. I would argue that this isn't 100% accurate though, because if you go to a local level it's typically blacks who hold the power in inner cities, and they can be racist against white people though.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
This makes sense. We have not had a billionaire be president before, so it is unprecedented. He has so many companies that are basically his hobbies, that he has put his heart and soul into, and he probably wants to continue running them when he is done being president. A lot of the people he works with in these companies are probably his friend, and I think he likes friends.

If he had to sell them off - could he buy them back when he's done being president? Are there other people that could run the companies besides his children?
edit on 22pmTue, 22 Nov 2016 17:20:16 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

This is a great explanation. Thanks for that.

I remember that maybe 15 years ago you still heard "reverse discrimination". It was something that white folks used when they saw racism that wasn't the typical southern American racism we all know and loathe. So it seems that, until recently, this was a voluntary distinction that was common in public use.

In other words: it was me (and others) who changed the functional definition of racism. If we went back to the (silly) term "reverse racism", it would likely solve that particular argument, while starting another. LOL

ETA: this is pretty exciting. This evening when my oldest son comes by, we can discuss this. And add in some words about listening to understand, not listening to responsd. I like eating a bit of crow right before the holidays.
edit on 11/22/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
This makes sense. We have not had a billionaire be president before, so it is unprecedented. He has so many companies that are basically his hobbies, that he has put his heart and soul into, and he probably wants to continue running them when he is done being president. A lot of the people he works with in these companies are probably his friend, and I think he likes friends.

If he had to sell them off - could he buy them back when he's done being president? Are there other people that could run the companies besides his children?


Going by the law, the President doesn't have to put his assets into a blind trust, it's more of a move the President makes in good faith to avoid the appearance of corruption. If Trump set up a blind trust, he would basically appoint a board to oversee his companies. The members of that board, would then not be allowed to communicate with Trump until he's out of office. So basically, it would involve Trump hiring another layer of management, and then trusting them to be able to work independently for the next 4 or 8 years.

In theory, his children could run the blind trust but it's not very practical because it means they wouldn't be allowed to communicate with each other and I don't think Donald wants to cut his family out of his life.

Most issues are solved with the blind trust, there's a few that aren't though such as his hotel in DC. Even if he has to wait for up to 4 years to see the profit, there's a real issue with having one of the Presidents real estate locations being the location where all the ambassadors, lobbyists, and anyone else who wants to gain influence meet and spend their time/money.

Personally, I wasn't comfortable with him using his properties to hold campaign events, but this takes it to a whole other level. Owning companies that have a direct involvement in government business is something that needs to be addressed. It's a similar issue as Haliburton and Cheney.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You know, while all of you are trying to make something out of nothing there are actual corrupt politicians who are still under investigation for actual things they did. Clinton is not off the hook. Not by a long shot.

He is a private citizen and can do whatever he wants before, during and after the election. He is not in office yet but damn it seems like it. How about the current POTUS? That is what this media # show is about. Deflect and do not look at the outgoing. Point out how many assets the Trump has...like it is a bad thing. What is wrong with wealth???



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Good discussion on racism.
I think there is a spectrum of racism, ranging from stereotypes (all blank are blank) to taking actions on those stereotypes. "Racism" is the above spectrum for skin color. And the idea of different "races" as apart from one human race is an out dated idea.

Racism used to justify the supremacy of one group over another is what is worse. Supremacy allows slavery to exist; it undergirded our own pre-Civil War Southern economic system. I remember seeing a Midwest public school textbook from the late 1800s, that showed a triangle of "races", starting with white at the top to black at the bottom. So it wasn't only in the South that supremacist ideas were passed down.

People might use racial stereotypes (either in an ignorant [in the best sense of the word] or a deprecating way). Obama's terms brought up much of the former but also the latter. In that sense, there was racism against Obama. Having a black POTUS did bring out the racists in some people, just as a woman POTUS would have brought out sexism. But to disagree with his policies did not automatically make one a racist. I see racism dying out in general with younger generations, but it is still around.

And power (which confers societal privileges).... oh, yes! Saul Alinski wrote his Rules book for an audience of middle class white Americans, because that was the group that held a large block of economic power (and hence societal privileges) at the time. Alinsky knew that if white middle class Americans could be organized, they could fight on whatever issues were important to them. Issues back then included helping non-whites (and women) obtain social, civil and economic equality. Grassroots organizing sprang up over other issues: environmental, peace, etc.

With a diminished middle class, economic power has gone upward. Alinsky was concerned back then that without organizing from the left, a frustrated middle class would be ready for a right wing leader, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday."

I think what most Americans do not realize is that both Clinton and Obama came out of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Much of the frustrations I have heard over the years has to do with increased corporate power in America, with corporate control over both parties and our lives.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

But I thought this whole Trump deal was to be getting away from that kind of self serving B.S. ?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Trump Says Any Conflicts Of Interest Were Priced Into Your Vote

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!”

The hell? It's the media's fault Trump has conflicts of interest while in the White House? Um no. It's his fault. He owns the businesses. The media pointing that out doesn't make them at fault. That is the media doing its job. You know making sure there is transparency between our government and the public?


The declaration that he currently has global properties comes after promising that he would separate himself from his Trump Organization and hand the company off to his adult children Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump in a so-called blind trust. He has so far done no such thing. In fact, his tweet is a statement in the present tense ― “I have interests in properties all over the world” ― that affirms his current ownership and management of his business empire.

The children continue to take part in their father’s presidential transition despite their supposed work leading the Trump Organization. Ivanka Trump even appeared at a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and reportedly was handed the phone to speak to Argentinian President Mauricio Macri when he called to congratulate her father. Trump is working to build an office tower in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This is BS. Even his children are demonstrating a conflict of interest. Trump hasn't even signed over his businesses in a blind trust to his kids, but even if he did it would still be a conflict of interest since those kids are involved in Trump's administration.


“President-elect Trump seems to think that he will be able to enrich himself as president and blame the press when he is caught,” said John Wonderlich, executive director of the pro-transparency group The Sunlight Foundation. “He’s going to learn soon that campaigning is very different from leading a country built on integrity and the rule of law.”

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.

Trump is demonstrating Government corruption (blatantly I might add) and he isn't even the President yet! He's basically saying here that a vote for Trump back on November 8th was a sanctioning of his corruption.




Meh, they all were saying the email server and every other scandal hillary has, was "baked" into her voters.









posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Some people on ATS have truly become nothing but pathetic and its because of the absolute perversion of reason that borders the absurd. I am so sick (and im sure all the non American members are too)of boards flipping out because of trump being the devil, having ruined everyone's life, and being too corrupt to continue his position as president. Cuz you know what? Trump has never once had his hand in legislation or politics,he still hasn't made a single move as a politician, nothing you experience now could possibly have squat to do with him unless you live in one of his buildings, and lastly, this tread- conflict of interest eh? Um I think the whole reason that he won was because people realized every legislator, executive, judge, justice, etc. was so deeply tied up in so many conflicts of interest finally there was no longer seeing any government, just a gang of twisted mafia men...criminals. Now why don't you get a life and stop speculating everyone's whole home page full. We Carr tired of judgment. Come back in December 17 and talk to us then. Till then he can do what he wants which will pale in comparison to congress, he ain't answerable to you as president yet. (Hmmm...come to think of it T. Gowdy rubs me the right way and so consider him an exception to what I said. Too bad he isn't being made vice p or cabinet member)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
I'll say two things and then leave this thread because people like you don't care about conflicting opinions anyways...

First...his role in his businesses can (and will) change before inauguration. This is a pointless..er...point.

Second...Nobody really cares. Nobody trusts the media. Nobody trusts politicians. That's why he won.


I said this 2 months ago elsewhere and will say it here again.
Trump is a self admitted Crony Capitalist and he did not make his billions doing it ethically.
He admitted he did what he had to do to get to where he is and he is not ashamed about it.

That does not make him a saint to be sure.

And as expected every step he takes, himself and his supporters will excuse it and this BS will continue like it has for the past 30 years with last 4 elite candy clowns we have had in power.

Not a dam thing is going to change

The big difference though is the last presidents actually at least put up a show of being ashamed when confronted and tried to make excuses
Trump will do none of that though as we see and let pride, sloth and greed show its true face for all too see.




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join