1) You can run through these and you'll also find that Sater is intimately linked to them, as well:

https://ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/

The Deep Capture piece is extremely extensive, but the Sater, Bayrock, etc. connections run deep to Madoff, Russian mafia (He's a boss's son.), naked short selling, pump-and-dump plays, murders, etc. We have mutual business associates, but most of these revalations were passed on to me as warnings about Sater: his connections with Trump were mentioned in passing and they are intimate. Anecdotal evidence never sounds great (See "console wars."), but I can tell you that this was verbally confirmed. I am personally concerned about that intimate connection and what it may portend, but I hope (I hope. I hope. I hope.) and choose to believe that it won't propagate.

2) On Washington, I should have linked this earlier: 

http://andthenwesaved.com/even-presidents-go-broke/

3) Trump choosing to live in NY requires them to overspend. Also, it is not reasonable to expect them to live elsewhere than the 58-story tower Trump is living in: logistically, response time dictates that they be in the building. It's so extreme that they are discussing permanent closures of lanes on fifth avenue (!?!) for security reasons. That's "necessary" to ensure a secure envelope.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Washington%2C+DC&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/14/no-washington-dc-is-not-more-expensive-than-new-york-city/

1) I don't have a subscription to see that article ... 

Furthermore after doing more research, Trump's connection to Russia is tenuous at best. The only dirt you have is that Felix Sater was born in Russia and his connections to his birth country are murky as hell. How much in contact has Trump been with Felix lately ? Moreover, does Felix Sater have any contacts that are russian government officials or prominent figures which are known to have relationships with the russian government ? (I am quickly losing faith that Trump's connection to Russia can be reasoned with at this point. Hence why FBI hasn't found shit so far.) 

2) Did the author even bother cross referencing the information about each president's net worth during their troubles ? Cause everybody else seems to think that Geroge Washington and Thomas Jefferson we're valued over hundreds of millions. The only consensus that I can get is that Thomas Jefferson only struggled with debt post-presidency wise so his wealth wasn't a cause of concern for conflicts of interest during his tenure since he had high equity in office ... 

Did their personal debt raise a serious issue when they could opt in to barter and sell their thousands of acres of land ? (It's not looking like the best presidents were dirt poor with tons of debt ...) 

3) It's not necessary for the secret service to rent out Trump Tower, they all have shifts y'know so that they can perform their duties in an optimal condition. I don't think running one block away is the end of the world if the president and his guards were facing a massive coordinated attack ... 

Would you really care if Trump took money or made promises to the Russians?

The whole "he's not bought by anyone" think is patently turning out to not be true as people like the DeVos billionaires are getting high level cabinet positions because they donated big money to his campaign, so it's not like that whole narrative of him being so different from any other politician even works.

Are Trump supporters still conned if he keeps the actual promises that got him the votes, especially among the working class? Like attempting to keep jobs in America and stopping thousands from loosing their jobs, as discussed in this thread:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=223149&page=1#

1) Sorry about the article subscription. My concern lies in his close connections to Russian mafia members (Sater is the son of a boss.), as Putin has them under his thumb. The families have effectively been consolidated (Pledge allegiance or die.). A lot of them have disappeared in the last couple of years, and a few have resurfaced as devout Russian nationalists. One of the more peculiar occurences have been Russian investors who miss major deal meetings; most don't resurface. This has started to become more commonplace with Chinese investors now, so we're collectively concerned about it impacting the investment community. If you're familiar with the industry, you know that Russian investment diminished and was surpassed by Chinese: this started with the consolidation and dovetailed into OPEC breaking the Russian economy, while attempting to price out the American shale oil companies.

2) I actually visited Monticello, and most of the furnishings are replicas, near-duplicates, and or reclaimed property. The reason is that Jefferson had to auction off most of his estate, because he was in such massive debt. By all rights, he was the master of his own undoing: he spent half of his presidential salary on wine lol. He also inherited signifcant debt from his marriage in 1774 and got himself caught up in bad lending arrangements with farmers, banks, and welathy individuals. I see high income-low networth and vice versa people all the time, and the latter usually get trippped up by their illiquidity (because they need the banks and financiers to capitalize on their equity); the former usually end up like MC Hammer. The bottom line is that high net worth people, especially those relying on hard money lenders, are often beholden to said lenders and "who" is more important than "how much."

3) You ever live in NYC or a high-rise building? "One block away," during any crisis situation, might as well be a mile. During "alarm" situations, elevators also go through a recall process that sends them to the first floor. Only a fire marshal can use his key to commandeer the elevator, which makes Trump's 58 flights of stairs a mite bit of an issue. There's a petition to defray the now-estimated $1MM cost to protect Trump in NYC; that's $365MM+/year or (assuming he's not impeached) $1.5B+/term. That's on him and total BS.

4) Daily news: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/01/us/politics/trump-conflict-of-interests.html

In reality? No, of course not. In the mind of the anti-Trump crowd? Yes. Always. :)

OH MY GOD! Well that makes me sick, I think I'll just use my free universal healthcare to go see what's wrong.

To be honest the specifics of this deal aren't great and they aren't what Trump promised. 

Trump said he would save *all* the Carrier jobs, and if Carrier moved to Mexico he would punish them with a 35% tariff on US sales. 

The deal he actually negotiated is this 

1.) Of 2100 jobs, he saved about 900 of them, which is less than half, and this isn't what he promised. What about the other 1100 jobs that are still lost here?

2.) In exchange for keeping those jobs, Carrier got some financial incentives and tax breaks. This is far from his talk of punishment, they got a bonus here. This is also a bad precident to set because now companies know they can threaten to move to Mexico, still move a fat chunk of their work force, but receive government grants/bonuses/tax breaks on top of that. 

3.) This is the best deal he could get with monstrously leverage, Carrier had $5-$7 billion in defence contracts with the government and that still doesn't buy you enough sway to save even 50% of a paltry 2000 jobs? That is really the kicker, the government had a ton of cards to play here.

This deal, while I'm happy for the small number of regular joes who will benefit, honestly isn't very good and it doesn't to me show any particular business savvy. They had all the leverage in this situation, and only saving 48% of the jobs is better than 0%, but it's still not what I would call a great deal. It also shows to me that a lot of his talk of tariff wars and punishing companies was mostly just bluster and hype. He's not willing to be nearly as tough on these companies as he campaigned on. 

Well to plays devil's advocate to your point.

1. Pretty sure I heard reports that he saved 1,000 not 900. Also it was 1000 out of 1700 or something. LIke 400 of them were moving regardless for some reason. I feel ike there were two locations or something. It was really only 1700 that had a chance of being saved at all.

2. I don't see tax breaks as a bad thing. Reports say it's something like 700,000 in tax breaks for the company Okay. Well that is what. 700 per job saved? I feel like those 1000 people will each be paying at least 700 in taxes from their wages for that year. You know income tax, that they can't pay if they don't have an income. Also how much would it cost to have those 1000 people on unimployment? So from just those employees alone Indiana shoudl get its money back, not to mention the business's that won't see a major hit by having a ton of people jobless. You know all the other local busineses that get business from those 1000 workers who still have jobs.

But I'm guessing that is too close to the dreaded philosophy of "trickle down economics" for most people to accept. Also lastly we don't know if he might not end up putting tarifs on all companies anyway. I mean, where do all teh businesses go anyway. They go to countries with tax benefits. It's obvious that to bring them back or keep them, we need to do the same. Say all you want about some evil organization, but they do what's best for their shareholders. You will have a hard time convincing me that if you (you is not directed at you, but everyone) owned a business and that moving it outside the coutnry would double or triple your profits, you woudl not do it. And if you say that you wouldn't, then I sure as heck don't want to see a single piece of electronics you use that is a huge thing in this, such as APPLE. You know the company that pays no taxes and has billions sitting over in Europe. That uses Foxconn, the most horrendous company in the world to make all their products.

This isn't what he said on the campaign trail though, lol. "Being moved for some reason" isn't really a comfort to people who losing those jobs. 

They are moving more than half of 2100 jobs to Mexico and are getting tax breaks/incentives to keep under 50% of those positions. 

Let me ask you then, if this is the precident, what stops every other company from saying "we're moving to Mexico, now give us tax breaks". That's one problem, I bet many companies are today looking at that deal and saying "hey how can we get in on that, why does Carrier get tax incentives and we don't?". Understand this is how companies think.  

This is not what he promised, he said any of these companies that moved to Mexico would face 35% tariff for doing so. Instead they are getting a tax break, a PR photo op, and still being allowed to move more than 50% of these jobs. 

Quite frankly too if he can't even save 50%+ of jobs with having $5 billion in defence contracts in leverage ... how good of a deal is he going to score with companies (the majority of which) don't have such lucrative deals with the government? He had all the leverage in the world here, to me it's not really a great deal.