A minor point: Just because Flynn served his country doesn't mean his record is necessarily spotless. You can be a war hero and still do something unethical.
The implication is that he is a Russian agent involved in a conspiracy by the mainstream media, that is a serious allegation for someone who has spent most of his life literally sacrificing for the country.
Procedural mishap is the least of the media's implication.
I would not agree that Trump is ethical. He still owns his businesses and is making decisions that impact the money that he is making.
You probably missed it when Trump has signed and stepped away from running his businesses to avoid conflicts of interest.
Something that is unprecedented and not even required by law.
You probably also missed when Trump specifically did not take donations from large corporations on the campaign trail.
If your not going to acknowledge all the unprecedented acts by Trump that no one has done before him, even when you wish to discuss ethics.
Then your evaluation of him isn't going to be fair.
The De-classified report by the intelligence Agencies shows 3, not 17 being involved.
That reports main findings is simply that Russian TV has favourable coverage of Trump.
None of the Russian Conspiracy angle by the mainstream media is credible, the actual report from the intelligence agencies doesn't support their wild and exaggerated claims.
Do you want me to go through it again?
Trump said he stepped away from running his businesses. That was where he had the lawyer from the Russia law firm of year go out and try to explain that that cleared him of ethical conflicts. Ethics experts say It doesn't.
Did you miss the nuance that he still owns the businesses? He knows what countries he has golf courses and hotels. He can easily find out by looking for the Trump name even if he doesn't talk to his sons. His sons running the day to day of his companies doesn't cover the fact that he still is making money off of his businesses. For example, his muslim ban didn't address countries with ties to terror that he has business ties with. Saudi Arabia, which had most the 9/11 hijackers was not affected. Did he do that because he doesn't want to affect a country that he has extensive business dealings or not? We don't know, do we?
Trump has signed off on his businesses and is in the process of transferring them to his children.
Trump specifically did not take large donations during his campaign trail from corporations.
Trump is not even taking much of the Presidential income last i read.
It is difficult for a private citizen that has ownership in so many businesses throughout their lifetime to extract themselves when becoming a President, and i appreciate that Trump is trying to do that, since no one else before him even bothered too.
If one doesn't acknowledge the practical difficulties in this, Then essentially we'd be saying any business owner shouldn't even try to run for Presidency because they'd immediately be committing a crime for virtue of actually owning a business.
Not practical at all.
His Travel Ban mostly deals with countries that are literally a smoking crater or are 3rd-world, are you arguing that Trump limiting people from Iraq (which Bush destroyed), Libya (whom Obama attacked) and Syria (which Obama destabilized via proxy war) is another conspiracy?
perhaps if Obama and Bush didn't destabilize those countries, Trump could have invested in it and he then subsequently could qualify your critieria that he ban some country he has a hotel in.
The Russian conspiracy angle has been debunked, because the de-classified report from 3 Agencies (not 17 as you claim before) has stated the only real significant finding was Russian TV having favourable coverage of Trump.
Furthermore with you linking, and with the media promoting a ridiculous dossier that states Trump likes to hire prostitutes to piss on beds Obama slept in, has discredited all stories that have no hard evidence.
No one can be sure the media didn't simply promote their anonymous stories from these trashy sources, this is one of the problems when the media engages in outright exaggeration and hyperbole without clear evidence.
Once one un-sourced and unverified story is debunked (as many have been) then all un-sourced and unverified story is discounted as credible until further hard evidence comes.
While it may be difficult to extract yourself from businesses, you have to do it. Part of the job is serving the American people, not your businesses. "You don't expect me to take a loss do ya?" I expect him to do what should be done. His job is to serve the American people not his wallet. He should divest himself into a blind trust, then his "billions of dollars" will go right back into other investments and he'll still be rich he just won't be making decisions based on his knowledge of his companies.
And his process of turning over his businesses to his sons? Last I saw, he hasn't done it. Either way he still owns the companies. He still profits from them. His decisions affect his wallet, he's ethically compromised.
He is hardly the only politician that had business ties before becoming president, previous presidents have put their holdings into blind trusts that manage their holdings without their knowledge. Trump could have divested himself and put his money into a blind trust, but chose not to do so, handing your companies over to your kids is not a blind trust.
The golden shower thing sounds ridiculous. Perhaps you or I would not dream of paying someone to do something like. But Trump? Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. This is the guy that said that he can grab em by the hooha and they let him do it because he's a celebrity. That is beyond dispute. This guy, beloved by evangelicals, also has said this “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” — from an interview with Esquire, 1991.
While it may be difficult to extract yourself from businesses, you have to do it. Part of the job is serving the American people, not your businesses. "You don't expect me to take a loss do ya?" I expect him to do what should be done. His job is to serve the American people not his wallet. He should divest himself into a blind trust, then his "billions of dollars" will go right back into other investments and he'll still be rich he just won't be making decisions based on his knowledge of his companies.
And his process of turning over his businesses to his sons? Last I saw, he hasn't done it. Either way he still owns the companies. He still profits from them. His decisions affect his wallet, he's ethically compromised.
He is hardly the only politician that had business ties before becoming president, previous presidents have put their holdings into blind trusts that manage their holdings without their knowledge. Trump could have divested himself and put his money into a blind trust, but chose not to do so, handing your companies over to your kids is not a blind trust.
Donald Trump has roughly 500 businesses, so unless you understand the practical difficulties of turning all of those into a 'blind trust' i'd suggest you read up on why this is virtually impossible unless you want to do it over a course of 20 years.
“You typically cannot simply transfer existing assets into a blind trust. As a practical matter it’s likely a complete non-starter,” says Leslie Kiernan, a partner at law firm Akin Gump and a former Deputy White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. For the trust owner to be truly “blind” to his portfolio, the assets typically have to be liquidated first, Kiernan says. The cash can then be funneled into the trust, to be managed by an independent trustee approved by the Office of Government Ethics. Trump would not receive any information on what has been bought or sold with his money, though he could get reports on how much income the portfolio generated as a whole.
I'd like to know what authors in what articles suggested something like a blind trust, since they display a total lack of understanding of how that works.
He is making efforts to divest himself from his businesses, and has already done this despite the vast difficulties because of his situation and we should keep encouraging it and be glad he is making efforts.
Instead of demanding impossible actions and act as if he has done something wrong for simply being successful in business as a private citizen.
It is ridiculous, and anyone using such flimsy evidence of Trump wanting Golden showers on beds Obama previously slept in lacks credibility.
Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the story is credible or not, It still requires solid evidence not baseless rumor spreading without verification.
If ethics is so important, as i keep hearing, then obviously One should also be ethical themselves and not give credence to something that is on the base of it outrageous and is unverified.
Now if you want to believe in that then that's fine, but it is then intellectually pointless for us to criticize Trump or go into a discussion over ethics then since we'd be engaging in unethical behavior ourselves.
I'd also like to posit a thought experiment for readers.
I think the situation is a wonderful thing to think about because it's very important for us to think of the practical nature of ethics around Presidency.
There will not be a perfect solution around this, there may not even be a great solution because the sheer size and magnitude of Trumps businesses is unprecedented in a President.
So one thing is we can do is bar any billionaire from being President to avoid this situation, sounds harsh, but does this solve more problems then it causes?
Billionaires are one of the only group of people that can run for President without being reliant on donations from corporations.
Lets look at another ethical problem, corporate donations for candidates is the norm when they campaign, now everyone admits this is a problem.
So if we bar corporate donations, or further ALL donations, that would solve this conflict of interest, what would be the result? nearly impossible for anyone to run for presidency except for....Billionaires.
So we've basically immediately run into a problem where we advocate no one run for Presidency because no matter what, there is some ethical dilemma in our current World.
Try and solve every ethical problem around Presidential Candidacy and think about the practical effects, and you'll quickly realize we need practical solutions not ideal solutions because we live in an imperfect world.
Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the story is credible or not, It still requires solid evidence not baseless rumor spreading without verification
Oh, I see....so as an example would this include going on a 4+ year crusade to convince the public that the first African-American President was born in Kenya?? Would this be an example of the type of ethical behavior we should strive towards??
Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the story is credible or not, It still requires solid evidence not baseless rumor spreading without verification
Oh, I see....so as an example would this include going on a 4+ year crusade to convince the public that the first African-American President was born in Kenya?? Would this be an example of the type of ethical behavior we should strive towards??
Or how about the crusade against a pizza parlor because someone said there was a pedophilie ring working out of there. Michael Flynn Jr. pushed that conspiracy by tweeting something like if you can't prove it didn't happen then there will always be the possibility.
Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the story is credible or not, It still requires solid evidence not baseless rumor spreading without verification
Oh, I see....so as an example would this include going on a 4+ year crusade to convince the public that the first African-American President was born in Kenya?? Would this be an example of the type of ethical behavior we should strive towards??
Or how about the crusade against a pizza parlor because someone said there was a pedophilie ring working out of there. Michael Flynn Jr. pushed that conspiracy by tweeting something like if you can't prove it didn't happen then there will always be the possibility.
I don't see how that makes the statement above any less true. If anything that strengthens it, that was some crap that went down.
Evidently you two are taking thing's a bit too personal and changing the discussion because of your animosity against Trump, essentially bringing up everything possible under the sun even when it doesn't follow from the conversation.
I don't recall ever commenting on anything about Kenya or Donald trump's son, nor were those any of the thing's discussed or followed from the conversation prior.
However if this discussion is going to become so acrimonious that we have to go all out attack on his children, you can count me not engaging in it.
I already consider the rhetoric around Trump to be exaggerated as it is, but going after his children by association isn't something I'll engage in.
Cheers.
Who's children?? Flynn's?? The guy was on the transition team for over a week. He was beyond fair game. He wasn't some random private citizen, he was helping shape the direction of the Executive Branch. I wasn't talking about anyone's son, I was talking about Trump himself. I'm totally lost as to what you're referring to.
Who's children?? Flynn's?? The guy was on the transition team for over a week. He was beyond fair game. He wasn't some random private citizen, he was helping shape the direction of the Executive Branch.
Your right, i read it as Trump Jr, my apologies.
Regardless you bringing up additional comments over Trump,when they don't follow the conversation shows your animosity clouding this discussion and accusing me in hostile tones is unacceptable plus i believe some mods want to keep this thread clear of that.
So I won't be following your reply since it isn't relevant to my comment, Kenya has nothing to do with it.
I'd guess from your posts that you want to post about negative things about Trump and discuss it Since you seem to bring up allegations randomly that don't follow from my own conversation. I suggest opening a new thread for that purpose because going through every possible media allegation is too much for this one thread.
The Gawker case was a billionaire (Peter Thiel) using his unlimited funds to fund Hulk Hogan's lawsuit, with the direct intent of putting them out of business, which succeded. Right now, you know you the lawyer from that case is representing?? Melania Trump, in a case where the publication in question issued both a correction and an apology, is still suing them with the exact same intent. You want the First Family using money and courts to put media organizations out of business?? Good luck with that country.
Furthermore, I thought the Supreme Court decided on public figures and libel and defamation laws long ago (Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt comes to mind), but apparently things aren't holding up in that regard.
I'd also like to posit a thought experiment for readers.
I think the situation is a wonderful thing to think about because it's very important for us to think of the practical nature of ethics around Presidency.
There will not be a perfect solution around this, there may not even be a great solution because the sheer size and magnitude of Trumps businesses is unprecedented in a President.
So one thing is we can do is bar any billionaire from being President to avoid this situation, sounds harsh, but does this solve more problems then it causes?
Billionaires are one of the only group of people that can run for President without being reliant on donations from corporations.
Lets look at another ethical problem, corporate donations for candidates is the norm when they campaign, now everyone admits this is a problem.
So if we bar corporate donations, or further ALL donations, that would solve this conflict of interest, what would be the result? nearly impossible for anyone to run for presidency except for....Billionaires.
So we've basically immediately run into a problem where we advocate no one run for Presidency because no matter what, there is some ethical dilemma in our current World.
Try and solve every ethical problem around Presidential Candidacy and think about the practical effects, and you'll quickly realize we need practical solutions not ideal solutions because we live in an imperfect world.
The Democratic and Republican parties agreed to campaign rules, post-Perot, which effectively barred anyone but a billionaire from acting as a third party candidate. That Trump managed to run inside the Republican party was no small achievement- one should not underestmate some of the keen minds who've been behind his campaigning (it's already on for 2020!) strategies.
That said if you want to be president then you have to not be a billionaire for awhile. Trump hasn't done this properly, and if he can't or won't then he should resign / be impeached. It's very simple, and the reasons for it are obvious. One difficulty that Trump may have with this of course is that being a billionaire alpha male is part of his brand, and relinquishing those trappings makes him appear weaker.
The Gawker case was a billionaire (Peter Thiel) using his unlimited funds to fund Hulk Hogan's lawsuit, with the direct intent of putting them out of business, which succeded. Right now, you know you the lawyer from that case is representing?? Melania Trump, in a case where the publication in question issued both a correction and an apology, is still suing them with the exact same intent. You want the First Family using money and courts to put media organizations out of business?? Good luck with that country.
I believe Melania Trump deserves just as much protection from slander then the average American.
I support Melania Trump going through the court system to resolve any libel case, That is what we are supposed to do in a country of laws.
I don't believe that because someone is famous, they should be treated any differently to an average American.
At the moment Melania Trump is a mother bringing up a young son, i am not aware that she has instigated any public policy to date so we should treat her with harshness as some public figure that has affected society in some negative fashion.
Of course if it is the case that by association to Trump you believe she warrants this kind of treatment then i fundamentally disagree, per my earlier point that i dislike the treatment the Trump children and spouse has experienced just by dint of association.
Furthermore, I thought the Supreme Court decided on public figures and libel and defamation laws long ago (Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt comes to mind), but apparently things aren't holding up in that regard.
The Democratic and Republican parties agreed to campaign rules, post-Perot, which effectively barred anyone but a billionaire from acting as a third party candidate. That Trump managed to run inside the Republican party was no small achievement- one should not underestmate some of the keen minds who've been behind his campaigning (it's already on for 2020!) strategies.
Yes the politics to hinder third party candidates is very interesting.
Ron Paul gained surprising support, so much so that arbitrary rules by the Republican party were instigated on the time of the vote to hinder him completely.
Ironically it is that same rules that inadvertently has helped Donald Trump.
There were many things in the Democrat party process that hindered Bernie Sanders too, strange things like getting more of the vote in a State but getting far less delegates for example.
The Gawker case was a billionaire (Peter Thiel) using his unlimited funds to fund Hulk Hogan's lawsuit, with the direct intent of putting them out of business, which succeded. Right now, you know you the lawyer from that case is representing?? Melania Trump, in a case where the publication in question issued both a correction and an apology, is still suing them with the exact same intent. You want the First Family using money and courts to put media organizations out of business?? Good luck with that country.
I believe Melania Trump deserves just as much protection from slander then the average American.
I support Melania Trump going through the court system to resolve any libel case, That is what we are supposed to do in a country of laws.
I don't believe that because someone is famous, they should be treated any differently to an average American.
At the moment Melania Trump is a mother bringing up a young son, i am not aware that she has instigated any public policy to date so we should treat her with harshness as some public figure that has affected society in some negative fashion.
Of course if it is the case that by association to Trump you believe she warrants this kind of treatment then i fundamentally disagree.
Furthermore, I thought the Supreme Court decided on public figures and libel and defamation laws long ago (Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt comes to mind), but apparently things aren't holding up in that regard.
The case i linked was between a hospital and CNN.
Except that's not how we do things. If this was the case, celebrities could sue the National Equirer after every single issue, or (back to this) Obama could have sued Trump's ass for blatantly lying about his birth certificate. He never would have, because he isn't a petty egomaniac, but more to the point, it would have been laughed out of court. In contrast, Trump sued Bill Maher because he took a joke literally and was....essentially laughed out of court. The burden on public figures (and especially political figures) in these cases is very, very heavy. As it should be.
Except that's not how we do things. If this was the case, celebrities could sue the National Equirer after every single issue, or (back to this) Obama could have sued Trump's ass for blatantly lying about his birth certificate. He never would have, because he isn't a petty egomaniac, but more to the point, it would have been laughed out of court. In contrast, Trump sued Bill Maher because he took a joke literally and was....essentially laughed out of court. The burden on public figures (and especially political figures) in these cases is very, very heavy. As it should be.
Err we can do these thing's, generally the courts are used to be the avenue to resolve civil or legal disputes regardless of the public figure.
I am not sure what other way your implying, I only know of military or national security matters having sometimes exemption from civil courts.
This particular fake news has been parroted by the commander in chief who often seems to tweet whatever the mid level cable news guys are talking about on Fox News.
I'm saying public figures cannot base lawsuits on incorrect information unless they are ready and able to prove actual malice in the intent. And it should stay that way.
Good for the hospital for doing so, though my guess is his case was helped by NOT being a public figure. I have my doubts about the merits going forward just based on the site the story is on, but I guess we'll see. I should sue that website for the amount of pop-up ads that took over my phone when I clicked on the link.
I'm saying public figures cannot base lawsuits on incorrect information unless they are ready and able to prove actual malice in the intent. And it should stay that way.
Good for the Dr. for doing so, though my guess is his case was helped by NOT being a public figure.
Of course if the courts find the lawsuit frivolous they will throw it out, that's fine and as it should be.
Which is still going through the courts anyway and I'm unsure how your comments relate to Melania or Gawker specifically.
I'm saying public figures cannot base lawsuits on incorrect information unless they are ready and able to prove actual malice in the intent. And it should stay that way.
Good for the Dr. for doing so, though my guess is his case was helped by NOT being a public figure.
Of course if the courts find the lawsuit frivolous they will throw it out, that's fine and as it should be.
Which is still going through the courts anyway and I'm unsure how your comments relate to Melania or Gawker specifically.
I'm saying that billionaires being able to strategically bankrupt media outlets because they have the unlimited funds to do so is infinitely more troubling than whether or not Hulk Hogan was embarrassed by a sex tape.
I'm saying that billionaires being able to strategically bankrupt media outlets because they have the unlimited funds to do so is infinitely more troubling than whether or not Hulk Hogan was embarrassed by a sex tape.
If Gawker was found innocent they can, and is common, be reimbursed through their fee's during the case by Hogan etc.
Are you stating it is irrelevant if the media organization was found in the wrong, because one of the actors happens to be a billionaire?
If it is the large settlement you have issue with, then it is not the billionaire but the judgement passed down by the Judge, so is the Judge the issue you have?
Both the verdict in the Gawker case and the intent behind the person funding the lawsuit are highly questionable, but it doesn't really matter, because he won.
Good god. Trump, in an interview tonight, not only says Obama is behind the Town Hall protests, but is also blaming him for leaks in his own White House and government. Can we dispense with the "party of personal responsibility" bullshit??
An oft-missed story is how well the markets are doing.
Dow hits 12th record high close; Trump talks up infrastructure spending Trump's promise a few weeks ago of a "phenomenal" tax announcement helped rekindle the post-election rally, driving the main U.S. markets to record highs. -http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1661KL
The speech coming up will be very important, especially in terms of how the markets react.
It seems investors and small businesses are very optimistic in America At the moment since Trump took office.
An oft-missed story is how well the markets are doing.
Dow hits 12th record high close; Trump talks up infrastructure spending Trump's promise a few weeks ago of a "phenomenal" tax announcement helped rekindle the post-election rally, driving the main U.S. markets to record highs. -http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1661KL
The speech coming up will be very important, especially in terms of how the markets react.
It seems investors and small businesses are very optimistic in America At the moment since Trump took office.
Investors and wall street are thrilled that they'll be able to get tax breaks, cut regulations protecting american workers, and generally continue to take advantage of Trump's goldman sachs and swampy cabinet.
Comments
Procedural mishap is the least of the media's implication.
Did you miss the nuance that he still owns the businesses? He knows what countries he has golf courses and hotels. He can easily find out by looking for the Trump name even if he doesn't talk to his sons. His sons running the day to day of his companies doesn't cover the fact that he still is making money off of his businesses. For example, his muslim ban didn't address countries with ties to terror that he has business ties with. Saudi Arabia, which had most the 9/11 hijackers was not affected. Did he do that because he doesn't want to affect a country that he has extensive business dealings or not? We don't know, do we?
Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign. In addition, U.S. Allies Conduct Intelligence Operation Against Trump Staff and Associates, Intercepted Communications with Russia.
Trump specifically did not take large donations during his campaign trail from corporations.
Trump is not even taking much of the Presidential income last i read.
It is difficult for a private citizen that has ownership in so many businesses throughout their lifetime to extract themselves when becoming a President, and i appreciate that Trump is trying to do that, since no one else before him even bothered too.
If one doesn't acknowledge the practical difficulties in this, Then essentially we'd be saying any business owner shouldn't even try to run for Presidency because they'd immediately be committing a crime for virtue of actually owning a business.
Not practical at all.
His Travel Ban mostly deals with countries that are literally a smoking crater or are 3rd-world, are you arguing that Trump limiting people from Iraq (which Bush destroyed), Libya (whom Obama attacked) and Syria (which Obama destabilized via proxy war) is another conspiracy?
perhaps if Obama and Bush didn't destabilize those countries, Trump could have invested in it and he then subsequently could qualify your critieria that he ban some country he has a hotel in.
The Russian conspiracy angle has been debunked, because the de-classified report from 3 Agencies (not 17 as you claim before) has stated the only real significant finding was Russian TV having favourable coverage of Trump.
Furthermore with you linking, and with the media promoting a ridiculous dossier that states Trump likes to hire prostitutes to piss on beds Obama slept in, has discredited all stories that have no hard evidence.
No one can be sure the media didn't simply promote their anonymous stories from these trashy sources, this is one of the problems when the media engages in outright exaggeration and hyperbole without clear evidence.
Once one un-sourced and unverified story is debunked (as many have been) then all un-sourced and unverified story is discounted as credible until further hard evidence comes.
And his process of turning over his businesses to his sons? Last I saw, he hasn't done it. Either way he still owns the companies. He still profits from them. His decisions affect his wallet, he's ethically compromised.
He is hardly the only politician that had business ties before becoming president, previous presidents have put their holdings into blind trusts that manage their holdings without their knowledge. Trump could have divested himself and put his money into a blind trust, but chose not to do so, handing your companies over to your kids is not a blind trust.
The golden shower thing sounds ridiculous. Perhaps you or I would not dream of paying someone to do something like. But Trump? Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. This is the guy that said that he can grab em by the hooha and they let him do it because he's a celebrity. That is beyond dispute. This guy, beloved by evangelicals, also has said this “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” — from an interview with Esquire, 1991.
“You typically cannot simply transfer existing assets into a blind trust. As a practical matter it’s likely a complete non-starter,” says Leslie Kiernan, a partner at law firm Akin Gump and a former Deputy White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. For the trust owner to be truly “blind” to his portfolio, the assets typically have to be liquidated first, Kiernan says. The cash can then be funneled into the trust, to be managed by an independent trustee approved by the Office of Government Ethics. Trump would not receive any information on what has been bought or sold with his money, though he could get reports on how much income the portfolio generated as a whole.
This means the New York billionaire would have to sell prized properties like Manhattan’s Trump Tower or Palm Beach’s Mar-a-Lago, and give control of his company to a virtual stranger instead of his children. Moreover, some of his holdings, such as his 30% stake in two office towers majority owned by real estate investment firm Vornado, cannot be sold unless he acquires his partner’s consent.
-https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/11/15/why-trump-wont-use-a-blind-trust-and-what-his-predecessors-did-with-their-assets/#4794aca29c05
I'd like to know what authors in what articles suggested something like a blind trust, since they display a total lack of understanding of how that works.
He is making efforts to divest himself from his businesses, and has already done this despite the vast difficulties because of his situation and we should keep encouraging it and be glad he is making efforts.
Instead of demanding impossible actions and act as if he has done something wrong for simply being successful in business as a private citizen.
It is ridiculous, and anyone using such flimsy evidence of Trump wanting Golden showers on beds Obama previously slept in lacks credibility.
Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the story is credible or not, It still requires solid evidence not baseless rumor spreading without verification.
If ethics is so important, as i keep hearing, then obviously One should also be ethical themselves and not give credence to something that is on the base of it outrageous and is unverified.
Now if you want to believe in that then that's fine, but it is then intellectually pointless for us to criticize Trump or go into a discussion over ethics then since we'd be engaging in unethical behavior ourselves.
I think the situation is a wonderful thing to think about because it's very important for us to think of the practical nature of ethics around Presidency.
There will not be a perfect solution around this, there may not even be a great solution because the sheer size and magnitude of Trumps businesses is unprecedented in a President.
So one thing is we can do is bar any billionaire from being President to avoid this situation, sounds harsh, but does this solve more problems then it causes?
Billionaires are one of the only group of people that can run for President without being reliant on donations from corporations.
Lets look at another ethical problem, corporate donations for candidates is the norm when they campaign, now everyone admits this is a problem.
So if we bar corporate donations, or further ALL donations, that would solve this conflict of interest, what would be the result? nearly impossible for anyone to run for presidency except for....Billionaires.
So we've basically immediately run into a problem where we advocate no one run for Presidency because no matter what, there is some ethical dilemma in our current World.
Try and solve every ethical problem around Presidential Candidacy and think about the practical effects, and you'll quickly realize we need practical solutions not ideal solutions because we live in an imperfect world.
Oh, I see....so as an example would this include going on a 4+ year crusade to convince the public that the first African-American President was born in Kenya?? Would this be an example of the type of ethical behavior we should strive towards??
Regardless you bringing up additional comments over Trump,when they don't follow the conversation shows your animosity clouding this discussion and accusing me in hostile tones is unacceptable plus i believe some mods want to keep this thread clear of that.
So I won't be following your reply since it isn't relevant to my comment, Kenya has nothing to do with it.
I'd guess from your posts that you want to post about negative things about Trump and discuss it Since you seem to bring up allegations randomly that don't follow from my own conversation. I suggest opening a new thread for that purpose because going through every possible media allegation is too much for this one thread.
The Court finds these allegations sufficient to establish that CNN was acting recklessly with regard to the accuracy of its report, i.e., with ‘actual malice,
-http://thewashingtonstandard.com/judge-hands-hospital-major-victory-cnn-reckless-reporting-malice/
It seems the judiciary increasingly has a dim view of the mainstream media, this on top of the Gawker debacle before.
I am glad there is increasing scrutiny of the mainstream media.
Furthermore, I thought the Supreme Court decided on public figures and libel and defamation laws long ago (Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt comes to mind), but apparently things aren't holding up in that regard.
That said if you want to be president then you have to not be a billionaire for awhile. Trump hasn't done this properly, and if he can't or won't then he should resign / be impeached. It's very simple, and the reasons for it are obvious. One difficulty that Trump may have with this of course is that being a billionaire alpha male is part of his brand, and relinquishing those trappings makes him appear weaker.
I support Melania Trump going through the court system to resolve any libel case, That is what we are supposed to do in a country of laws.
I don't believe that because someone is famous, they should be treated any differently to an average American.
At the moment Melania Trump is a mother bringing up a young son, i am not aware that she has instigated any public policy to date so we should treat her with harshness as some public figure that has affected society in some negative fashion.
Of course if it is the case that by association to Trump you believe she warrants this kind of treatment then i fundamentally disagree, per my earlier point that i dislike the treatment the Trump children and spouse has experienced just by dint of association. The case i linked was between a hospital and CNN.
Deuce!
Ron Paul gained surprising support, so much so that arbitrary rules by the Republican party were instigated on the time of the vote to hinder him completely.
Ironically it is that same rules that inadvertently has helped Donald Trump.
There were many things in the Democrat party process that hindered Bernie Sanders too, strange things like getting more of the vote in a State but getting far less delegates for example.
I am not sure what other way your implying, I only know of military or national security matters having sometimes exemption from civil courts.
Sweden doesn't recognize 'national security adviser' interviewed on Fox News
This particular fake news has been parroted by the commander in chief who often seems to tweet whatever the mid level cable news guys are talking about on Fox News.
Good for the hospital for doing so, though my guess is his case was helped by NOT being a public figure. I have my doubts about the merits going forward just based on the site the story is on, but I guess we'll see. I should sue that website for the amount of pop-up ads that took over my phone when I clicked on the link.
Which is still going through the courts anyway and I'm unsure how your comments relate to Melania or Gawker specifically.
Are you stating it is irrelevant if the media organization was found in the wrong, because one of the actors happens to be a billionaire?
If it is the large settlement you have issue with, then it is not the billionaire but the judgement passed down by the Judge, so is the Judge the issue you have?
Dow hits 12th record high close; Trump talks up infrastructure spending
Trump's promise a few weeks ago of a "phenomenal" tax announcement helped rekindle the post-election rally, driving the main U.S. markets to record highs.
-http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1661KL
The speech coming up will be very important, especially in terms of how the markets react.
It seems investors and small businesses are very optimistic in America At the moment since Trump took office.