Skwim
Veteran Member
What was free?Ergo as it was free it wasn't in violation of the clause.
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What was free?Ergo as it was free it wasn't in violation of the clause.
Ergo as it was free it wasn't in violation of the clause.
What was free?
.
Your own source tells you the difference:
"Nearly all of the gifts were turned over to the government."
Even though the gifts were given to Obama he did not keep them. He knew that he legally could not keep them. If Trump gave Doral to the government then I suppose he could have done that. But we all know he did not.
Um....I just answered that.
Because as President Lincoln noted, it's illegal for a President to accept any gift or payment from a foreign leader or government.
Yes, he probably kept only personal gifts of little to no value. Those would be excluded from the emolument clause.Nearly all, that means not literally all.
it is in the Constitution. And why? So that a President does not even appear to have been bribed.No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?
Understand?
it is in the Constitution. And why? So that a President does not even appear to have been bribed.
Not always. Try again.Its not about appearence, its about actually doing something wrong.
no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
At this point, I have to ask; (1) are you just trolling, or (2) are you seriously this ignorant of the concept of diplomatic corruption?
They're a pain in the neck at times, but they're designed to ensure both the appearance of propriety, and to avoid overcharging, graft and corruption via provision of contracts in return for favours, friendships, etc.
They are commonly paired with approved supplier lists, for ease of implementation, and would typically kick in over a threshold.
Rules are particularly stringent where public monies are used, since redistribution of public money gathered via taxation to private pockets is an obvious point of corruption. Many, many countries have problems with this, although the degree varies.
He shouldn't. He should have divested himself of shares and put The money raised from it in a blind trust, independently managed. This basic ethical position has been followed by former Presidents of both sides of politics. It's only the unusual laws limiting the President's legal exposure which makes this an ethical, rather than legal consideration.
You can state that as much as you like. Both sides of politics agreed it was inappropriate. When you see bilateral agreement from a US Parliament, you might want to consider there is more to the rationale here than you seem willing to admit or understand.
Leaders pay money to businesses indirectly controlled by another world leader. This is not based on the hotel being judged best, or best value or anything other than Trump's evaluation. If you see nothing wrong with that, fair enough, but you're clearly a Trump cheerleader at that point.
I've lived in a country previously where this sort of thing happened routinely. Whether you think Trump was corrupt in this case, or misguided (I go for misguided) this is exactly how corruption works. Government funds channelled to areas personally benefitting individuals without due oversight.
Swing voter in Australia. Centrist, basically, although that makes me socially left by US standards.
Economically I'm probably slightly right.
It's an opinion about what you posted.
Your entire post wasn't trolly or ranty in my opinion. But towards the end you were playing the man instead of the ball. (Err...does that saying translate?)
Nope. I'm pretty chilled on that sort of stuff. I come here to talk to people of various flavours. I don't expect them to agree. Just thought you started going on about lefties and Dems, and whatever. Both folks in the centre and right of politics have had issue with this too. It's not a witch-hunt, it's an ethics issue.
Because he is involved in decisions where he has a vested interest, such as with Turkey. It's hamstrings his ability to make decisions on behalf of the US without fear and favour.
You can disagree with my take, but separation of decision making at the Presidential level with personal profit-taking is a key tenet of a healthy democracy.
Why was his hotel selected?
How would a hotel have been selected in a dictatorship?
Because the emoluments clause says it is. Ya know, that one Trump referred to as "phony" yesterday. It's only in the Constitution, but Trump apparently doesn't know that.You still havent answered my question. And anyone that does not answere my question is wrong in my book.
Ill ask it again. Why is it wrong for forign leaders to pay him for rooms at his hotel?
Also, if this is wrong, ill just go ahead again and point out the democrats double standard. Joe biden and obama recieved gifts from foreign leaders. Obama given pricey gifts from foreign leaders
People like you need to realize that it's only so "dam good" in America because the Constition and rule of law have been safeguarded all this time by people who value it.You know darn well what im talking about. You know how to read. Read what i said and answer it. Dont waste my time responding like that.
Ya, ok, foreign leaders paying for a hotel is corrupt, ya, sure, if you say so.
People like you need to be more grateful for how dam good you have it in america. Why not go to a country where REAL corruption is happening instead of making up corruption like foreign leaders paying for a hotel.
Um what? He's much more likely to be bribed by the people staying at his hotel than people staying somewhere else because people staying in his hotel will be paying him money. Like seriously, you need to think this over a bit more and stop floundering around looking for excuses to defend this guy because you just love him so much or whatever. Think, man.Trump providing rooms at a hotel isnt trump eccepting a bribe. I already told you that and its a logical statement.
Further, even if they go to another hotel, he could STILL eccept a bribe.
Where they meet has no bearing or none bearing on bribes given, not given, eccepted or not eccepted.
Do you understand any logic?
Do you understand its corrupt to try to punish someone who hasnt even done wrong?
Several people have answered you. You should slow down and take the time to read the responses.No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?
Understand?
It's illegal because it violates the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which is in there because the founding fathers wanted government officials, including the President, to work for the people and the country, rather than using their offices for their own personal benefit.No, you didnt answer the question. Why is it wrong to accept the gift? Because its illegal? Why is ut illegal? Because the constitution? Why is it in the constitution?
Emoluments clause.
Look up the definition of emoluments clause to learn definition
He is a businessman, a terrible one.
What's wrong with people coming to his hotel? Nothing when he isn't president. See emoluments clause.
The topic at hand has nothing to do with bribes.
The problem is your information sources are telling you he did nothing wrong. Are you sure your information sources are telling you the truth?
I suggest Trump stop skirting laws and acting unfit for the presidency. How often do you watch Fox?
What was free?
.
I asked because:Trump said he was going to do it at costs or free. Ergo no gift involved thus no violation.
I asked because:
(Think Trump would eat $40 million+? I don't)Trump’s Decision to Host G7 at Doral Resort Raises Questions About Struggling Property, Deutsche Bank Loans
By Rey Mashayekhi ........... October 18, 2019
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, appeared to try to preempt such concerns Thursday in announcing that Doral would indeed host the international gathering. He noted that the administration’s vetting process concluded that Doral is “by far and away, the best physical facility for this meeting,” and stressed that Trump would not profit from staging the summit at his own property. In fact, Mulvaney said, Doral would host the G7 “at cost.”
Yet it’s not apparent how the Trump Organization would ensure that it is the case. For instance, Mulvaney didn’t specify whether the company would refuse compensation and opt to pay for the event out of its own pocket. (The most recent G7 summit, held this year in Biarritz, France, reportedly cost French taxpayers north of $40 million—with previous summits in Canada and Italy said to have cost considerably more.)
It’s also unclear why it would choose to go to such lengths, given the extent to which Doral has struggled financially in recent years. In May, the Washington Post reported that the 643-room resort had been hit by declining revenues and profits between 2015 and 2017, with both occupancy and room rates well below competing resorts in its area. The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Doral actually lost money to the tune of $2.4 million in 2014, the most recent year for which the Times was able to obtain documents specifying the Trump Organization’s profits.
That’s less than ideal, especially considering that the Trump Organization borrowed $125 million from its most prolific creditor, Deutsche Bank, to finance the resort’s acquisition and renovation. Like many of Deutsche Bank’s dealings with Trump, that loan remains shrouded in mystery; it’s unclear how much of the balance on the loan remains outstanding, or when it comes due for repayment. A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the matter.
source and more
.