By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If You are going to vote please watch this

dharh on 19 September 2016

This is what we get with citizen united. Money is speech and at the current time _none_ of this is illegal. Republicans want even _more_ of this. Mark my words, it will only get worse once Trump gets into office and starts giving away positions to his kids, friends, and family. They will milk this country dry.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
Around the Network
sundin13 on 19 September 2016
fatslob-:O said:
sundin13 said:

Like...someone said, when you are Secretary of State, everyone wants to get involved. There is no evidence that any decisions were made due to this email. Again, this is the definition of circumstancial. Again, I agree that there are conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation, but there isn't direct evidence of quid pro quo.

Now, speaking about Trump for a second, I have already posted that Trump receives $8million per year from his South Korean deal. Now, your sources indicate that Soros provided the Clinton Foundation (again, this money goes to charity, not into Clinton's pockets) $7mil during the election cycle, so any way you slice it, Trump is making more money from a single source than Clinton is here. The fact that Clinton recieves more money total really only implies that she has more sources of income for her foundation and that there are more interests involved (meaning that the interests of her donors would be more likely to conflict). 

Also, you are acting like Trump licensing his name isn't central to his business strategy, when that has been his business strategy for years now (and its very worth noting that the federal disclosure form is far from complete due to it not exactly being written for someone like Trump).  Additionally, there are and have been many other deals involving this licensing, so if the South Korean deal is anything to go by, factoring in an increase in Trump's name power as president, it wouldn't be unlikely that future licensing deals which he could directly affect as President would make him over $10million per year each.

I'm not really sure why we are arguing anymore. This has become a pissing contest. Both of them have clear, undeniable conflicts of interest. Theres no two ways about it.

However, worth noting that Hillary has already made it clear that Bill and several other members will step away from the foundation (Hillary has already stepped away), it will go independent, and donations would only be accepted from US citizens if she were to become president. Trump on the other hand has said that his kids would be in charge of his business, which doesn't separate him any where near far enough from the conflict of interest imo.

Well if you've read the article ever since that $43 billion dollar accounting fraud, Daewoo E&C made revisions to the contract. You say he's getting $8 million dollars but his financial disclosure form says otherwise ... 

You're convinced that the Clinton Foundation is a charity but on what grounds do you have to really substantiate that claim ? Furthermore, why exactly does the Clinton Foundation have so many insiders as their top staff when a practice of good governance is that board members are to have term limits ? 

Even if his name does rise to fame, how likely do you think he'll be able to break the low double digit barrier for licensing ? 

Rhe source I posted earlier did say that Trump was making $8mil per yea, but it wasn't clear whether that was now or when the contract was first penned. Regardless, it sets up a ballpark for how much these deals are worth annually. And as I've stated, the financial disclosure form is far from all encompasing. Due to the fact that Donald Trump also operates his business, some things were left out of the report because all that was required to disclose were Trump's personal finances, not his business's finances. That means that money flowing through Trump Organization is handled differently than money flowing directly to Trump himself and it also means that some money is being unaccounted for. Not saying that is illegal, just that the form wasn't designed to be used for someone like Trump. 

As for the other stuff...I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Clinton Foundation is a charity any way you slice it. An IRS investigation doesn't make the Clinton Foundation not a charity (especially when the investigation is not concluded) and the Clinton Foundation donating money to another charity run by someone they know also doesn't say anything about whether or not they are a charity. Not sure what you are trying to prove. 

As for how likely it would be to break the low double digit barrier, I don't know and I really don't think it matters. We are still talking about values in the tens of millions per year for a single deal, and that is if the Trump business has absolutely no stake whatsoever in the properties which really depends on how the contracts are ironed out (according to the WSJ, Trump typically does get a management contract or a portion of future sales which wouldn't be counted in the "licensing" category of his finances). We lack the information to determine exactly how much Trump stands to make off of each of these deals, but we do know that the properties involved are typically worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Licensing is a big part of the expansion of Trump's business and his business plan for the last few years. I don't see any sane way to deny that this creates a conflict of interest.

EDIT: According to this ( http://www.newsday.com/news/world/donald-trump-s-company-fired-by-panama-city-development-1.10947710 ), Trump was expected to take in $75.4 million in licensing fees for one property back in 2007 but due to bankruptcy, he "only" got $32-55million instead and that is ignoring any addition stake contingent on the contract. We aren't talking pocket change here.



fatslob-:O on 19 September 2016
sundin13 said:

Rhe source I posted earlier did say that Trump was making $8mil per yea, but it wasn't clear whether that was now or when the contract was first penned. Regardless, it sets up a ballpark for how much these deals are worth annually. And as I've stated, the financial disclosure form is far from all encompasing. Due to the fact that Donald Trump also operates his business, some things were left out of the report because all that was required to disclose were Trump's personal finances, not his business's finances. That means that money flowing through Trump Organization is handled differently than money flowing directly to Trump himself and it also means that some money is being unaccounted for. Not saying that is illegal, just that the form wasn't designed to be used for someone like Trump. 

As for the other stuff...I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Clinton Foundation is a charity any way you slice it. An IRS investigation doesn't make the Clinton Foundation not a charity (especially when the investigation is not concluded) and the Clinton Foundation donating money to another charity run by someone they know also doesn't say anything about whether or not they are a charity. Not sure what you are trying to prove. 

As for how likely it would be to break the low double digit barrier, I don't know and I really don't think it matters. We are still talking about values in the tens of millions per year for a single deal, and that is if the Trump business has absolutely no stake whatsoever in the properties which really depends on how the contracts are ironed out (according to the WSJ, Trump typically does get a management contract or a portion of future sales which wouldn't be counted in the "licensing" category of his finances). We lack the information to determine exactly how much Trump stands to make off of each of these deals, but we do know that the properties involved are typically worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Licensing is a big part of the expansion of Trump's business and his business plan for the last few years. I don't see any sane way to deny that this creates a conflict of interest.

EDIT: According to this ( http://www.newsday.com/news/world/donald-trump-s-company-fired-by-panama-city-development-1.10947710 ), Trump was expected to take in $75.4 million in licensing fees for one property back in 2007 but due to bankruptcy, he "only" got $32-55million instead and that is ignoring any addition stake contingent on the contract. We aren't talking pocket change here.

As far as I'm concerned, Trump owns his organization so his licensing fees will get disclosed one way or another on his financial disclosure form ... 

Wrong! Bill Clinton did not donate to another charity, he donated the money from the Clinton Foundation to a FOR-PROFIT COMPANY so I ask how can the Clinton Foundation be a charity if it does not adhere to STRICTLY benefiting for the PUBLIC according to IRS regulations ? What Bill Clinton did is a textbook example of EMBEZZLEMENT! 

You can't buy his interests if he already owns the property or a part of it. You say "big" but I say exaggeration on your part since licensing fees are a miniscule portion of his revenue. His MAIN profit/revenue driver is REAL ESTATE, not licensing! 



Soundwave on 19 September 2016

Trump should release his tax returns. He's terrified of doing so because he knows that there's something in there that will cost him the election in my opinion.

I think hilariously actually this is why he "sorta" apologized to President Obama for the birther issue just out of the blue for no real reason this last week, because it came out that the president actually has the power to order the release of any tax return, so Trump probably shit his pants when he heard that.



sundin13 on 19 September 2016
fatslob-:O said:

As far as I'm concerned, Trump owns his organization so his licensing fees will get disclosed one way or another on his financial disclosure form ... 

Wrong! Bill Clinton did not donate to another charity, he donated the money from the Clinton Foundation to a FOR-PROFIT COMPANY so I ask how can the Clinton Foundation be a charity if it does not adhere to STRICTLY benefiting for the PUBLIC according to IRS regulations ? What Bill Clinton did is a textbook example of EMBEZZLEMENT! 

You can't buy his interests if he already owns the property or a part of it. You say "big" but I say exaggeration on your part since licensing fees are a miniscule portion of his revenue. His MAIN profit/revenue driver is REAL ESTATE, not licensing! 

Well if you actually read your sources thats not how it went down. The money didn't come from the Clinton Foundation, it actually came from an individual named Kim Samuel. This announcement was made at the Clinton Foundation's annual convention which led to the confusion but no money actually ever moved from the Clinton Foundation to this Energy company. 

Anyways, as I thought I made clear, a lot of the conflicts of interest come from potential points of expansion for the Trump brand. There have been numerous areas where Trump has run into roadblocks which have held up some of his deals so these deals could potentially be contingent on US intervention. Further, it also depends on the specific contracts and how the Trump Organization interacts with some of these other companies. I used the example of Daewoo in the past and sources have stated that the Trump Organization and Daewoo are "tied", though it doesn't specify the details of the relationship. There are plenty of examples where the Trump Organization has taken on a role as part owner of something. Finally, you continually pull from incomplete data to act like licensing is basically irrelevant. Yes, the main source of revenue is real estate, however a one time fee of seventy five million dollars, followed up by unspecified annual payments in anything but insignificant (especially for just one deal). Additionally, as I've briefly mentioned, there are also domestic issues such as how Trump handles tax codes which will quite clearly directly affect his business. 

EDIT: "Over the past six years, Trump has dispatched three of his children -- Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr. -- around the world to seek new business, saying in the interview from South Carolina that he had more than 100 deals under discussion, 85 percent of them abroad."



Around the Network
Dunban67 on 19 September 2016
DarkD said:
Such nonsense.

Maybe you do have a point of some kind, but it's nothing new. The RNC would be doing exactly the same thing if they actually liked Trump in any way.

I've read mountains of stuff on Hillary and Donald. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the most picked over, exposed, and public politician in the whole of the United States. She's been getting first rate investigations into her background for TWENTY FOUR YEARS... For that time, you have a shaky email investigation that was cleared by a REPUBLICAN. Some sex scandals of her husbands (So what, she stayed with him to help her political career. Just means she's a politician.) and from what I can tell, a MOUNTAIN of exaggerated claims and misleading facts which even the republicans apologize for.

So the sum total of negatives against her are 1) she's a politician... 2) She circumvents security rules for her own convenience.

There's a reason republicans news stations aren't bringing this garbage up. They've made themselves look bad dozens of times now poking into every poorly thought out conspiracy theory and people don't trust them anymore.

All you have to do is look at the liberal comments on this thread. No one other than hardcore republicans are even taking any of this seriously. You've lost all credibility.

more sheeple speak

 

This post was modded by 



Dunban67 on 19 September 2016
dharh said:

This is what we get with citizen united. Money is speech and at the current time _none_ of this is illegal. Republicans want even _more_ of this. Mark my words, it will only get worse once Trump gets into office and starts giving away positions to his kids, friends, and family. They will milk this country dry.

too late-  the Clintons and Obamah have aready done it-  The Clintons and Obamahs arrived in DC with modest means during which time they have been" public servants"  yet the Clintons are now worth over 100 million $ s and Obama s  millions more than when they arrived



dharh on 19 September 2016
Dunban67 said:
dharh said:

This is what we get with citizen united. Money is speech and at the current time _none_ of this is illegal. Republicans want even _more_ of this. Mark my words, it will only get worse once Trump gets into office and starts giving away positions to his kids, friends, and family. They will milk this country dry.

too late-  the Clintons and Obamah have aready done it-  The Clintons and Obamahs arrived in DC with modest means during which time they have been" public servants"  yet the Clintons are now worth over 100 million $ s and Obama s  millions more than when they arrived

LOL.  You are talking like that is a new thing.  The revolving door of everyone from presidents down to lowly house reps giving speeches for mega bucks and/or being hired onto boards of mega corps is something that has been going on for DECADES. DECADES. Obama hasn't even left office yet, he isn't worth the millions the Clintons are.  Get your facts straight.

What I was talking about is the new norm where what once was outright bribary is now just business as usual, thanks to the supreme court.  Repubs and demos are currently just exploiting the new normal.  To not exploit it is to lose and neither one wants to lose.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
DarkD on 19 September 2016
Dunban67 said:

too late-  the Clintons and Obamah have aready done it-  The Clintons and Obamahs arrived in DC with modest means during which time they have been" public servants"  yet the Clintons are now worth over 100 million $ s and Obama s  millions more than when they arrived

The bribery that gave them that wealth only exists because the republicans let it.  You wanna complain about the money going into politics, then you my friend are a liberal and you just don't wanna admit it.  Government bribes is a republican policy.  

Before you say something stupid.  Yes both sides currently take them, but the side actively defending them are the republicans.  The side that's at least talking about getting rid of them are the democrats.  And the official liberal platform is to get rid of them.  



Ganoncrotch on 19 September 2016
Dunban67 said:
DarkD said:
Such nonsense.

Maybe you do have a point of some kind, but it's nothing new. The RNC would be doing exactly the same thing if they actually liked Trump in any way.

I've read mountains of stuff on Hillary and Donald. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the most picked over, exposed, and public politician in the whole of the United States. She's been getting first rate investigations into her background for TWENTY FOUR YEARS... For that time, you have a shaky email investigation that was cleared by a REPUBLICAN. Some sex scandals of her husbands (So what, she stayed with him to help her political career. Just means she's a politician.) and from what I can tell, a MOUNTAIN of exaggerated claims and misleading facts which even the republicans apologize for.

So the sum total of negatives against her are 1) she's a politician... 2) She circumvents security rules for her own convenience.

There's a reason republicans news stations aren't bringing this garbage up. They've made themselves look bad dozens of times now poking into every poorly thought out conspiracy theory and people don't trust them anymore.

All you have to do is look at the liberal comments on this thread. No one other than hardcore republicans are even taking any of this seriously. You've lost all credibility.

more sheeple speak

You are aware that this isn't an actual reply to his post right? it's just name calling, if everyone came into this thread and instead of explaining why you were wrong with the OP just added 3 word insults for you making it... wouldn't be a great thread would it? I mean the thing is you are asking that people go to lenghts to explain their reasoning, yet resort to 3 word insults as replies.

The worst thing is I don't even think you are aware of how much this isn't a reply.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive