How is Pres Elect Trump supposed to handle his business?

WhatFor

Wed, Nov 23 2016, 11:53 pm

Squishy wrote:

1. I don't believe, never thought, and never stated that race or ethnicity indicates that someone has a NATURAL TENDENCY to behave a certain way (specifically to commit crimes).

Where did you get the words NATURAL TENDENCIES? Are they from the White Supremacist site that you knew about?

I can't figure out if you are twisting my words deliberately or you just don't understand.

I believe that people are socialized to their tribal characteristics/group norms/ethnic identifies. I do NOT believe they are created that way.

2. The above goes for your twisting of statistics.

3. You are positing that a costumer stays at his hotel. To make said costumer happy, he gives diplomatic concessions instead of a chocolate on his pillow ??????

I am leaning towards you not understanding.

Sigh. There's really no need to keep going in circles. You can just reread my prior post again if you didn't understand it the first time.

I actually quoted you telling me that I didn't provide any facts to back up the notion that race is a neutral factor. If you require evidence to back up my assertion that race is a neutral factor, then it can be extrapolated that in your opinion, race is not a neutral factor. Do I need to break this down for you even further? Because if you thought that race was a non-factor in determining propensity to commit a crime, you wouldn't ask me to provide you with evidence of it. If you're asking me to provide evidence to back up a statement, I'm going to assume that you don't already believe it.

Quote:

Are they from the White Supremacist site that you knew about?

I think it's adorable that you post to a white supremacist cite to back up your claims, and then you add "that you knew about" as though to insinuate that I have some prior relationship to this site. News flash. I did already know about that site as of a week before, when another (presumably) Jewish poster on this site posted to that White Supremacist site. So I actually learned about that site from Imamother. Why are a bunch of Jewish women posting to a White Supremacist site? Beats me. You'd be better suited to answer that question since I have no idea what possessed you to link to that site. I don't randomly run into white supremacist sites in my google searches and if I did, I don't think it would take me too long to figure out that I don't want to be citing to the White Supremacist cite. Feel free to keep citing there- far be it from me to stop you. Although I have no problem calling you out on it each time you do.

If you cannot understand the conflict of interest based off of the original post alone, I don't think I can explain it to you. Although in my defense, I really did try.

33055

Thu, Nov 24 2016, 12:24 am

WhatFor wrote:

I was being facetious about you knowing about the site first, but I have never posted to the site as you state above. I came across it accidentally because it referenced material I googled, and I didn't read further than that. I am amazed you found out about it here. Do you have a link to that thread?

Of course I can understand the conflict of interest. It is obvious even to us presumably Jewish posters. (BH for my promotion to presumably Jewish from what you were insinuating before.)

Again, I don't know what one would do about the conflict of interest. I believe it is a big jump from conflict of interest to on track to commit a crime.

Can you see my point that if it is a conflict for a foreigner to stay as a guest at the Trump Hotel, then it is a much greater conflict to sell the hotel to anyone at all who might benefit from the President's policy decisions? Any buyer would get identified even if sold in a blind trust.

Laiya

Thu, Nov 24 2016, 9:02 am

Squishy wrote:

The reason I say it is not practical for him enter his assets into a blind trust is the size of his assets. If it has the Trump name, it is obviously his. If the trustee goes to sell, his assets can move markets. Anyone who puts their mind to it will know what is owned in the blind trust. Any large sale of his assets will have a corresponding large purchase of other assets. It is tough to hide billions.

Imagine how much more those that are carrying on about a foreigner staying at his hotel will carry on if he sold said hotel to a foreigner. They will claim he is accepting gifts and the hotel was only worth X, but he got X+Y.

I think rather than his net worth declining in a firesale, I think it will greatly appreciate because it is an excellent way to help out a President-elect-in-need.

I don't see how either way solves the ethics problem.

You make a very good point. Regardless of what he does or doesn't do, people will claim there is a conflict of interest.

33055

Thu, Nov 24 2016, 9:08 am

Laiya wrote:

Why not? If he fully divested himself of his own interest in all of his assets? Ex. to buy T bills. Then the trustee would just be keeping an eye on the Tbills.

There would be a major appearance of impropriety by the sale itself. Whoever bought his assets would appear to be buying influence. There is no independent market for real estate with blind buyers and sellers like there are for stocks on the exchanges.

For example, if the Chinese bought his golf course in Scotland then it would appear they want trade concessions by enriching his pockets. No matter what he sold it for, it would be problematic for someone.

He is in a no win situation here.

BTW dumping billions into T bills would cost innocents money. Interest rates would drop.
Your plan is good for someone worth millions.

Laiya

Thu, Nov 24 2016, 9:33 am

Squishy wrote:

I 100% agree. I was trying to make the point that there is really nothing he can do, that he would not be accused of engaging in conflicts of interest. Even giving over or selling his interest in his business to his children would not make people happy.

Since his businesses are owned by him and his kids afaik, if he gave over his interest in his businesses to his kids (somehow without incurring a billion dollar gift tax), that should really solve the problem.

One can't argue that it's not blind, if he has no further personal interest in the assets. The blind trust is for managing assets the president still owns.

Yet people are still arguing that he'll be motivated to do what's good for his kids. So he can't win.

Laiya

Thu, Nov 24 2016, 9:55 am

WhatFor wrote:

Selling his assets to his children is unlikely to be considered a blind trust, so you're correct- people would probably be unsatisfied with that.

As far as whether it is "fair" or not, all Presidents of the U.S., equally, should remove themselves from conflicts of interest. Does that mean that an individual with more potential conflicts may have to more to lose when taking on the role of President of the US? Of course that could mean that. But that would only be unfair if he was forced into the position of the President of the U.S.
He voluntarily chose to run for one of the most prestigious positions in the world. In this position, he has an obligation to serve the people of the U.S.
At the same time, as the CEO of a company (or as an Executive member), he actually has fiduciary obligations to the shareholders. Meaning, by regulation, if a good financial opportunity comes his way, he should be working in the best interest of his business.
I think the OP example is a good one. But outside of that, it's not difficult to see where things might quickly conflict. For example, say he wants to build a large set of condos in a country but there's a bunch of red tape to get past and that country's regulations ban building in that area (let's say it's a conservation space). But if the President of the U.S. wants to build a set of condos, how much easier will it be to jump through all those hoops and get that exception for those condos. Would that be considered accepting a gift? It can get even more complicated when he requires permission from a government to build somewhere and that government also wants something from the U.S. (We think the US tax on our country's import is too high). Of course those last few are hypotheticals but they're not "crazy" hypotheticals.
Trump is in the business of building condos. Every time he wants to build in another country, he needs permission from some level of government official...and so it goes.

None of this is to say that he has to be some cruel and evil person to do this. He simply has to keep doing what he's doing, being a businessman, and he's easily going to wind up having to consider whose interests to put first: his corporation's or the nation's.

Regarding the bolded. This would essentially create a disincentive for a certain segment of our society to run for office. That is not a precedent that we would want to set or that would benefit the country (and arguably undemocratic).

I think there are solutions here, but probably none that will satisfy everyone.