How is Pres Elect Trump supposed to handle his business?

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:23 pm

Squishy wrote:

The fact that certain groups are more likely to commit crimes is separate and apart from the fact they are punished disproportionately for the same crimes. Your logic is seriously flawed and has been so since throughout this thread.

The DOJ studies (and others) show that certain groups will commit more crimes than other groups. Where are your facts to back up that race and ethnicity is a neutral factor in group crime rates? You can't come up with facts because your assertions are absurd. Group norms differ amoung groups. This is different than the fact someone is born to a race. I don't expect you to understand that. That differentiation is too complex for you.

I am not the one who claims predictive powers of individuals who are on track to commit crime. That super power belongs to you. You didn't claim he was susceptible to committing crime. You claimed twice he was on track to commit said crimes.

My logic is not flawed because I didn't argue that the fact that people are disproportionately punished for crimes means that they don't commit the crimes disproportionately. I argued that the fact that they're more likely to be locked up is not sufficient as evidence, since they are disproportionately punished. But I do appreciate your attempt at logical reasoning.

You're the one that's claiming that minorities are more likely to commit crimes so you would be the person who should be bringing forth that evidence. Again, it's hard to know how accurate that evidence is since we usually base it on those who are arrested or convicted for it, and we do know that minorities are more likely to be arrested and convicted for such crimes. But we don't have to go down that road since the crime rates among minorities is irrelevant to the original post which was about Donald Trump. I understand that it's very very difficult for some of us to talk about Donald Trump without slamming minorities, but I'm sure if we make a serious attempt, we can be successful.

It's not a stretch of some elusive "predictive power" to claim that Donald Trump is on track to commit a crime. We already have laws against a President taking bribes from foreign entities. Donald Trump is currently actively involved in business with other countries, and his businesses often involve negotiations with foreign governments (regarding zoning laws, etc.) for his own private businesses. He is also right now holding open houses encouraging representatives of foreign governments to use his business when they are in town, and at least some of them are getting the impression that to not use his business- to not put money into his pocket- would be an insult to him. If he continues doing what he is doing right now in two months time, he could arguably be committing a crime. It's perfectly reasonable for someone, even a supporter of Trump, to say, "Hey Mr. Trump, how are you going to be separating your own interests from those of the country?"

This is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, and your own personal opinion about the relative competence of minorities should have no place in this discussion.

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:30 pm

Amarante wrote:

A blind trust is impossible for the Trust business holdings because every other official who has put their holdings in a blind trust truly doesn't know what is in there or what the Trustee is doing because they own stock or bonds so the trustee buys and sells.

It is especially impossible for Trust to do so since he is asking for top security clearance for his children who would then be privy to the most insider of insider trading knowledge.

But what else can one expect from a man who was elected despite flouting the almost 50 year old tradition of providing tax returns. By his own actions, he would not be able to have been his own Vice President or serve in the Cabinet.

And I don't think any other President has been able to directly benefit knowingly his business interests in the way that Trump will be able to do especially since by not releasing his returns, no one has any idea of exactly what those interests are and who he owes money to.

Trump did NOT ask for top secret security clearance according to USA Today, a paper that is hostile to him. Facts only please.

Also, your understanding of blind trusts show a certain naivity about how the real world works. Acquisitions and sales of substantial positions of publicly traded stocks trigger reporting requirements. In some cases as low as 2% and 5% to simplify. Sales and purchases of Real Estate are public information. How do you evade the reporting requirements and the president's knowledge when the facts are screamed out in newspapers? Any waiving of the reporting requirements prejudices innocent investors which is why they were instituted in the first place. Also, the beneficial owner of the trust knows the proclivities of the trustees.

How can you think that no other President directly benefited from knowledge gleaned in office? The Clintons started profiting in Arkansas.

I don't know the answer. But we do believe in Chinese walls not being porous, spouses never having pillow talks about confidential work matters, and other blind trusts that are truly blind.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:45 pm

Fox wrote:

You didn't see racism. You saw somebody make the following comparison: people who assume that Trump will violate ethics standards are like people who assume certain minorities will commit crimes. They are both prone to stereotyping and prejudice.

snip

Fox, I'm going to unpack this. Squishy said:

Quote:

Why don't we lock up everyone who is on track to commit a crime? We could lock up a bunch of minorities wholesale. There is no need to wait?

Her sarcastic statement is meant to bring to light a certain point: Even when we suspect someone is likely to commit a crime, we don't like them up. What she's saying is, just like we don't lock up a bunch of minorities, we shouldn't lock up Trump.

But this analogy is racist. It seems that because of the overuse of the term, you have an aversion to the word and you cannot see it while it's happening. It's saying, "Just as we don't arrest minorities even though we assume that they are on the track to commit crimes (wait, what? why would we assume they might commit crimes?) so too, we shouldn't arrest Trump, even though we assume he is on the track to commit a crime (but wait, why would you assume that either?)."

When you answer the questions in the parenthesis, you see where the racist prejudices come in. We might assume that minorities commit crimes because why? Oh, because we assume that belonging to a race makes you more likely to be a criminal. That is racism.
Why would we assume that Donald Trump might commit a crime? Because if he continues engaging in his current activities the way he is doing right now, in three months time, it could be considered a crime. It's not "racist" or "prejudice" to think that Donald Trump might commit a crime, because we are simply looking at his current activities and saying, this won't work when you take office, and how are you going to reconcile that? It is racist and prejudice to say that someone is on track to commit a crime simply because they belong to a particular race.

And if you don't believe that that's what Squishy meant, simply read her next post where she reaffirms that "certain groups" are more likely to commit crimes and indicates that she does not believe that race and ethnicity is a neutral factor in someone committing a crime.

ETA: I want to address this part:

Quote:

Here's a little exercise: when you say Trump is "on track" to violate the Constitution, try substituting his name with "African Americans" or "Latinos" or "Native Americans". Do you see the problem? If you can't swap the group out without it becoming racist/sexist/whatever-ist, then you are the one promoting stereotypes and prejudices.

You realize why that doesn't make sense, right? If you see A speeding toward a red light, and you say, "A is on track to violate a regulation and run a red light", then you're making a statement based on his actions. If you randomly say, "African Americans are on track to violate regulations and run red lights," that's racist. Not sure why you think this exercise is helpful. It doesn't work in this context.

I'd like to, again, point out, that despite Squishy's straw man, I never claimed Donald Trump should be locked up. I confirmed that (along with the original post) I am curious about how he's going to separate his personal interests from those of the nation's. Again, there really is no reason for a discussion about minorities in this thread. We can all have the discussion about how Donald Trump will be separating his finances from the nation's interests without discussing crime rates among minorities. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[quote]

Last edited by WhatFor on Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 8:53 pm

WhatFor wrote:

You can't ignore facts and then claim to be reasonable. You wrote the illogical conclusions. I merely pointed out your flawed reasoning. I cited DOJ studies showing that certain minorities are more likely to commit crimes. You cited nothing. You gave your personal opinion and stated it as such. Your rebuttal ignored the DOJ study, and then re-stated your personal opinion as fact but didn't back it up with any facts.

You can't punish anyone for prospective crimes. It is idiotic to say that someone has the markers to commit a crime, so they are on track to commit that crime. We can't tell with psychopaths, and we can't tell with president elects. It is impossible to predict what someone will do. Assessment tools to predict recidivism are "utterly useless". This was determined over large prison populations. I can give you a cite later, but it is on Reueters.

If you, or other liberals, know some way to know who is on track to commit crimes, kindly share them with the parole boards.

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:04 pm

[quote="WhatFor"]You realize why that doesn't make sense, right? If you see A speeding toward a red light, and you say, "A is on track to violate a regulation and run a red light", then you're making a statement based on his actions. If you randomly say, "African Americans are on track to violate regulations and run red lights," that's racist. Not sure why you think this exercise is helpful. It doesn't work in this context.

I'd like to, again, point out, that despite Squishy's straw man, I never claimed Donald Trump should be locked up. I confirmed that (along with the original post) I am curious about how he's going to separate his personal interests from those of the nation's. Again, there really is no reason for a discussion about minorities in this thread. We can all have the discussion about how Donald Trump will be separating his finances from the nation's interests without discussing crime rates among minorities. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Quote:

You are making me dizzy, and you are disingenuous. You didn't say how can he separate his finances? You said he is on track to commit a crime like your person A who is speeding and already driving recklessly.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:05 pm

Squishy wrote:

Saying DOJ studies exist isn't actually citing to the DOJ. You didn't actually post any DOJ so there's nothing to rebut. It's difficult to ignore a study I was never even presented. Again, as I keep repeating but this seems totally lost on you, the propensity of minorities to commit crimes has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Nobody is arguing that Donald Trump is predisposed to commit crimes based on his genetic markers or cultural upbringing. Again, it is not idiotic to say that someone is on track to commit a crime in a situation where, if in three months time they continue doing what they have been doing for the last forty years they could be engaging in criminal activity. In other words, in certain situations, a President is not allowed to engage in certain business practices that an ordinary citizen can. There is simply too much of an appearance of bribery and it certainly sets him up for liability. Again, the question posed was: How is Donald Trump going to separate his personal interests from the nation's interest? If he's too involved, he could be engaging in criminal activity. I don't need to share this with parole boards, because I assure you that government officials are very much aware of this and on top of this (specifically the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee). This was a discussion among ourselves and if anyone could lend input as to how he would separate his business interests from our nation's interest. Ready to move on? Or do we still need to discuss how minorities are more likely to commit crimes. (I'd encourage you to start a spinoff but I think such a topic would quickly violate the rules of this site.)

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:10 pm

Squishy wrote:

Maybe you didn't understand the crime we are talking about. It is criminal for a President to take bribes from people.
Currently, Donald Trump is doing business with other countries. Currently, it is legal for Donald Trump to continue taking money from these countries. In a few months time, it may not be legal for him to continue to do so. It could be considered taking a bribe. It is not difficult to see how Trump could commit such a crime. All he will have to do is exactly the same thing he is doing now. Not criminal for him to do now. Could be criminal for him to do later.
The question posed was how is he going to separate his finances/business from his post as President? This is all part of the same discussion. Does that clarify things for you?

Fox

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:30 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I read her analogy as comparing the type of people who believe that members of certain minority groups will be more likely to commit crimes with people who believe that successful business executives will be more likely to commit crimes. In both cases, regardless of whether and to what degree the prejudice is justified, we don't lock people up before a crime is committed.

You don't have to agree with my interpretation, and I certainly can't speak for Squishy's intentions. But I certainly believe there is enough evidence to give her the benefit of the doubt or at least ask her to clarify -- rather than using vomiting emoticons, smearing her and everyone who participates on Imamother as racists, and making claims about your decency as a human being.

There may not be a specific word for people who harbor stereotypes and prejudices against successful business executives, but they are every bit as ugly as racists, and you don't seem to be acknowledging that.

Claiming that an elected who is not yet in office is "on track" to violate the Constitution makes no sense. There are all kinds of things that a private citizen can do that a sitting president cannot or should not do. But he's a private citizen until he takes the oath of office -- that's what a "transition" is for! Of course he would be acting inappropriately if he did all the things as an elected official that he would do as a private citizen. How does that put him "on track" for anything.

I'm delighted that you're not advocating locking President-elect Trump up for something you think he might do in the future, but the quality of complaints is seriously declining. Last week it was complaining about Steve Bannon; now we're talking about things that would be wrong if Trump does them in the future. And the Vice-President-elect is being harangued by people wearing tap shoes.

Everyone who dislikes Trump needs to go home and rest. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of grist for the mill of discontent once he's actually in office, and people need to save their strength.

Laiya

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:41 pm

Amarante wrote:

This another mainstream media smear with no basis in fact:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/.....nces/

Eta. I see Squishy already noted this

Last edited by Laiya on Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 9:42 pm

Fox wrote:

No one is categorizing wealthy businesspeople in one category. My post was a direct response to the original post and it was specific to Donald Trump. Donald Trump has yet to make clear how his business is going to be separate from his presidential post. Yes, he's in the transition stage, but during this transition stage, his business is inviting foreign diplomats into his hotel to sell it as a place to stay during his presidency. The people overseeing his "blind trust" are also currently involved in the transition stage. He has not yet made clear how he is going to be separate from his business while he's in office, lending credence to a concern that he might be "taking gifts" while he's president.
As to your gripe about the quality of complaints, you're entitled to believe that it's a nonissue. Others are entitled to believe that this is an issue. My OP on the Steve Bannon thread was perfectly legitimate as well: What has Steve Bannon done that demonstrated that he was antisemitic. I was actually arguing against some claims because I was looking for actual proof. FWIW, I don't believe that the OP of this thread was anti-Trump (although I haven't investigated that too deeply.) If you think that all of these are non issues, that's fine, but others want to discuss it, and you can be okay with that too.

Fox

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 10:00 pm

WhatFor wrote:

He has not yet made clear how he is going to be separate from his business while he's in office, lending credence to a concern that he might be "taking gifts" while he's president.

Again, I'm not sure how this is different than any incoming elected official. Jumping from "we don't know precisely what he's going to do" to "he may engage in corruption" is not an appropriate or prudent leap of logic. If we arrive on Inauguration Day and he still hasn't dealt with how his businesses will operate, you'll have grounds for complaint. If there's evidence that he's accepted bribes, you'll have grounds for complaint.

WhatFor wrote:

As to your gripe about the quality of complaints, you're entitled to believe that it's a nonissue. Others are entitled to believe that this is an issue.

Opinions have to be supported with evidence; they're not an entitlement. Actually, I believe that Trump's handling of his business concerns is an issue. However, none of us is privy to enough information yet to know whether it's an issue that we need to be concerned about. The same is true about potential corruption. The fact that people are hoping to improve their relationship with him by staying at his hotel is not evidence of corruption.

So what possible opinions or beliefs could any of us have at this point? These are excellent questions as we get closer to Trump taking office, but anything we think at this point is purely hypothetical.

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 10:59 pm

WhatFor wrote:

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new

That is one such article that quotes such a study.

You are getting lost in the fact that you can't predict someone's future behavior whether they are minorities or the president elect.

33055

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 11:05 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I am even more confused by you. What foreign governments is Donald Trump legally taking money from currently? How do you know this? Why isn't this a headline?

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 20 2016, 11:43 pm

Squishy wrote:

I am even more confused by you. What foreign governments is Donald Trump legally taking money from currently? How do you know this? Why isn't this a headline?

It's not a headline because he's doing business with them, which is perfectly fine right now. For example, he currently owes Deutsche Bank millions of dollars. This same bank is currently being investigated by our own DOJ and could potentially be fined millions of dollars by the US. Or, as another example, he owes debt to the Bank of China which has also been subpoenaed by the DOJ on another issue. He also currently has 1.5 billion dollars of deals going on in India. All of this creates potential conflicts of interest, and that is making headlines (see Reuters, the Washington Post, the Atlantic.)
It's not that difficult to see why if, a President owes millions of dollars to a government bank which in turn owes the US millions of dollars, people want to make sure that there's oversight and deals are settled in the interest of the US and not a sitting president.
What many more people are bothered by, actually, is that we are not privy to his potential conflicts of interest because he hasn't released his financial dealings. So the two that I wrote about are only a couple that we know about. But unless he would advise us of his financial dealings, we don't know all of his potential conflicts of interest.

WhatFor

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:01 am

Squishy wrote:

You do realize that you posted a link to a White Supremacist website that hosts the KKK and Neonazis at its events, right? I don't plan to give that site traffic.

You're using a false analogy. You cannot predict someone's behavior based on their ethnicity or race. You can make reasonable guesses about someone's behavior based on the actions that they are engaged in right now.

Of course Donald Trump may actually decide to completely disconnect from all his assets, his debts, his finances, and totally commit to his role as President. Some people are getting anxious because at this stage he hasn't publicly done much to assuage the public on how he's going to separate his business from the nation's interest. He has continued to engage in his businesses and has involved in his government the people who were supposed to ensure that his business remained neutral from the government. Some (like Fox) can say give him some time and let's see what happens. Fair. Others are wondering aloud how and whether he's actually going to disentangle himself from his interests. Also fair.

33055

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:17 am

WhatFor wrote:

You still have not said what governments are giving the money that Trump is taking.

Trump has released a 104 page financial disclosure statement, so we do know of his financial dealings.

While Trump does have licensing deals in place in India, the 1.5 billion in assets belong to his partners, not Trump. I am not so bothered by his current loans because the terms are fixed. It is the future loans and modifications of existing loans bear watching.

Because of the visibility of his brand and his knowledge of how his businesses work, it would be hard for him not to know what is going on even with an independent trustee.

Watching to see if there is any wrong doing is different than condemnation prior to any malfeasance. We simply don't know if he is on track to commit crimes.

33055

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 12:38 am

WhatFor wrote:

I have been the one saying you cannot predict someones behavior. You can't predict anyone's future behavior based on their behavior right now. You certainly can't predict based on race or ethnicity. Why can't you understand that? Parole boards know they can't predict who will commit future crimes and they have a lot more experience over a bigger population. No one is on track to commit crimes unless they are actually in the process of breaking the law like your person A.

I was being extremely sarcastic when I said to lock em up based on minority status. That being said, there are group norms which differ between groups. I don't believe it is because someone is born that way, so don't even start that again.

Since you agree with Fox now to give him.a chance, her work here is done.