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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Everybody needs to learn that the purpose of the two (or three) party system is to ensure the continuity of the agenda of the elite. The elite give the masses the choices they want them to have which is them or them., faction a or faction b

The masses may be permitted to elect the pilot but they sure as christ don't set the flight plan or the destination.




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First: Wasn't it hillary that said bill would continue to run things with the CF if she were elected? After she said they'd distance themselves from it?

So are you okay with melania running the trump businesses?

Second, as is properly pointed out in the OP (though not in the right context) who is he supposed to turn the businesses over to? There is no way to appease the left as his name and brand is the business. Like it or not the Trump enterprise is intrinsically attached at the hip to Donald J. Trump.

Third, I believe these trump tweets are about the media claiming he's beholden to other countries because of his businesses abroad. Not that he won't sign them over to the kids.

Lastly, but most importantly: Unlike clinton, trump has no history of using his public position to enrich himself. He has never held public office. So the benefit of the doubt should go to him. This is further evidenced by the beating his company took during his campaign and how much did he complain? HOWEVER, we should remain watchful and level headed about this. I will fight against his enriching himself with all of you perma-outraged leftist goons if he does that. Until there is evidence of it, let's not get too worked up.

edit on 23-11-2016 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Trump is entitled to run his business as President if he so wishes.
As it happens he has said he is in the process of handing over control to his kids, which is what he and his kids have said all along would happen.
So there is no story here at all except the fabricated one that the news media and those that lap it up are trying to push.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The media DID vet these things. Everyone just ignored them or labeled them propaganda.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The point is that he turns over his businesses to his children. Which is fine, BUT he can't have his children involved with his administration while that is going on. Furthermore he isn't even turning over his businesses to his children. So your point is moot.


Lastly, but most importantly: Unlike clinton, trump has no history of using his public position to enrich himself. He has never held public office. So the benefit of the doubt should go to him. This is further evidenced by the beating his company took during his campaign and how much did he complain? HOWEVER, we should remain watchful and level headed about this. I will fight against his enriching himself with all of you perma-outraged leftist goons if he does that. Until there is evidence of it, let's not get too worked up.

Yeah he's only bragged about using the system to enrich himself. That's not a warning flag or anything...



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

The point is that he turns over his businesses to his children. Which is fine, BUT he can't have his children involved with his administration while that is going on. Furthermore he isn't even turning over his businesses to his children. So your point is moot.


Lastly, but most importantly: Unlike clinton, trump has no history of using his public position to enrich himself. He has never held public office. So the benefit of the doubt should go to him. This is further evidenced by the beating his company took during his campaign and how much did he complain? HOWEVER, we should remain watchful and level headed about this. I will fight against his enriching himself with all of you perma-outraged leftist goons if he does that. Until there is evidence of it, let's not get too worked up.

Yeah he's only bragged about using the system to enrich himself. That's not a warning flag or anything...


You don't know he will not turn over his businesses to his children, or indeed the management structure if he does.
You don't know if any of his children will be in his administration, which has not started yet.
This entire thread was based on a lie and now you are just layering in more propaganda.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Donald Trump Basically Says Conflicts Of Interest Aren’t Illegal If The President Has Them

President-elect Donald Trump told The New York Times Tuesday that laws around conflicts of interest don’t apply to him, and he can simply keep running his businesses from the White House.

“In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly,” Trump said, according to tweets from New York Times reporters interviewing the president-elect Tuesday. “There’s never been a case like this.”

I mean what exactly is he doing that is making you think he WILL do this?


He is technically correct on both counts.

Federal conflict of interest laws do not apply to the president of the United States, and the obvious conflicts of interest created from his ownership of a global real estate empire are unprecedented in the nation’s history. Just because the federal laws mandating other federal officials to place their assets into a true blind trust run by an independent trustee do not apply to the president, does not mean that Trump’s conflicts of interest are not real.

Trump seems to think otherwise: “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

To take Trump seriously, and not literally, as his defenders like to do, he is saying: If the president does it, it’s not illegal.

Look. There is even a legal loophole for him to worm through to get away with this.
edit on 23-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Donald Trump Basically Says Conflicts Of Interest Aren’t Illegal If The President Has Them

President-elect Donald Trump told The New York Times Tuesday that laws around conflicts of interest don’t apply to him, and he can simply keep running his businesses from the White House.

“In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly,” Trump said, according to tweets from New York Times reporters interviewing the president-elect Tuesday. “There’s never been a case like this.”

I mean what exactly is he doing that is making you think he WILL do this?


He is technically correct on both counts.

Federal conflict of interest laws do not apply to the president of the United States, and the obvious conflicts of interest created from his ownership of a global real estate empire are unprecedented in the nation’s history. Just because the federal laws mandating other federal officials to place their assets into a true blind trust run by an independent trustee do not apply to the president, does not mean that Trump’s conflicts of interest are not real.

Trump seems to think otherwise: “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

To take Trump seriously, and not literally, as his defenders like to do, he is saying: If the president does it, it’s not illegal.

Look. There is even a legal loophole for him to worm through to get away with this.


You left out the part where he said he will be handing over control to his children.
That is the part which makes me believe he will...fairly obvious really.
The fact that you missed out this part just discredits this hit piece even further.

As for legalities, he is correct that the law is on his side, even if he decides to maintain direct control.

You are not being serious in any way. If you were you would present all evidence and have a debate about it, not take the information that suits your argument, ignore everything else, and push a conclusion.

You reached your conclusion and then fit the facts you needed to support it, and changed some of the words to make it more of an issue.

I will wait till he is actually in office and has had the chance over these next two months to get things in order. If he is still running his businesses day to day and has his family in govt positions too, then there is a discussion to be had about the implications of not going above and beyond the letter of the law. Even then, the discussion would need to be had on policy decisions that benefit his business but not the country as a whole in order to draw any negative conclusions.
edit on 23/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth
Fantastic. You do that. I'm going to continue to distrust him in every way possible because I see him for what he is. A con man. It's nice that his mere words are all you need to trust such a dip#, but I need actions and his CURRENT actions spell out a different story.
edit on 23-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are right, god you are so right. Anyone with half a brain would have seen he is a con man. I feel terrible. This is probably going to be worse then when I believed in Obama. A sucker is born every day, sucks to know I'm one of them.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


It's not an attack, it's a statement of the facts of this subject.

You added words to a statement in order to make it sound bad.
Trump is not in office, but you've assumed his children will be part of his govt when he takes office.
You missed out the fact that he said he is not interested in his business given his Presidential responsibility
You missed out the fact that he said he will be handing control to his children.

If you are not going to debate all the points and default to emotional judgements about the man, then how can you have any credibility?
edit on Wed Nov 23 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   


BUT he can't have his children involved with his administration while that is going on.


The children and son-in-law are active in building his administration and meetings with heads of state. The writing is on the wall.

The Clinton's will look like amateurs when these people are done.


(post by SignalMal removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't refused to accept any facts. Just because Trump said something doesn't mean it is automatically true. Trump says A LOT of things. I don't believe things Trump says because he is a proven liar. So no. I'm not ignoring facts like you are blithely assuming about me. I just don't give any weight in my reasoning to Trump's words. HOWEVER you don't care about that nuance and instead choose to attack and insult me.

Actions speak louder than words. THAT is a fact. If he actually follows through, I'll shut up about this, but until then he gets no quarter from me.
edit on 23-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't refused to accept any facts. Just because Trump said something doesn't mean it is automatically true. Trump says A LOT of things. I don't believe things Trump says because he is a proven liar. So no. I'm not ignoring facts like you are blithely assuming about me. I just don't give any weight in my reasoning to Trump's words. HOWEVER you don't care about that nuance and instead choose to attack and insult me.

Actions speak louder than words. THAT is a fact.


Your thread is largely based on his words, so you believe some of them at least. Not withstanding the actual words he used do not support the theme.

As for actions, given he is not President yet and is in the midst of preparing for his Presidency, it's safe to assume that there are no actions yet taken that show a conflict of interest between his Presidency and his business, nor is there any statement from Trump which tells voters he believes conflicts of interest were built into the vote.

You are welcome to take a position that Trump is bad because you personally don't believe anything he says. It just doesn't have any credibility as a serious argument.
edit on 23/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread was a Krazyshot at making nothing into something, all he said was

1. Yes I have a business
2. You knew this already
3. I'm not going to do anything illegal
4. Don't listen to the media

The title of this thread, and the way you are trying to spin it don't even come close to matching up



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join