Donald Trump pulls his Doral property from consideration for G-7 after bipartisan blowback

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Oct 20, 2019.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

    First off, your chosen source is the merriam Webster dictionary and the commonly understood definition for emoluments which includes the "or gain." After @yardmeat points out the obvious that you gain something through ANY revenue, you warp the definition.

    Second, you now pretend that the founding fathers - without citation - knew that emoluments referred solely to profit. So let's address the logic side of that argument. If the Founding Fathers were concerned about a foreign entity exerting an undue influence over a President by providing a gift to that President, why would it make any sense for them to create a MASSIVE ****ing loophole by permitting the President to just say, "No, that million dollars is because of a service my personal business provided." Even if you could remotely come close to justifying the expenses under a thinly veiled guise of providing the service "at cost," then it is still something given that would not have taken place but for the President's status and thus would incentivize the President up to providing a benefit to that country in return.

    Third, you have already been given multiple citations as to what the Founding fathers deemed would fit under the definition of emoluments. Here it is again:

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

    The word emoluments was intended by the Founders to mean a payment, gift, or service.

    In conclusion, lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.
     
    bx4 and btthegreat like this.
  2. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    109,413
    Likes Received:
    37,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republicans say it’s corrupt for foreign govts to donate to hillarys charity, but Trump can charge them for hotel rooms at his property for a G7 meeting???
     
  3. Borat

    Borat Banned

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    23,909
    Likes Received:
    9,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL boys, you're a riot.

    Definition of gain
    : resources or advantage acquired or increased : profit made substantial gains last year
    : an increase in amount, magnitude, or degree

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gain

    at cost = no profit = no increase = no gain

    You boys are cooked, stick a fork in each other..... Arguing that profit and gain are revenue to anyone like a senator or a judge or jury...
    bwahahaha

    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:
    :spin::spin::spin::spin:
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,011
    Likes Received:
    62,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but.. but.. but... I though Trump doesn't control his businesses, how could he control that?

    fact is though, there would have been no profit as no one would have showed up, other countries were planning to boycott the meeting if it was held at Trump properties - thus why Trump decided to cancel, no profit, then no meeting
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  5. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want to try flipping the argument slightly. Let's set aside the notion of whether mere revenue from qualifies as a violation under the foreign emoluments clause.

    Do you think that profit would violate the emoluments clause? In other words, hypothetically, Trump does host the G7 at Doral and he does make a profit explicitly from foreign money and let's go further and say that Trump refuses to hand that money over to someone else, does he then violate the emoluments clause in your mind?
     
    bx4 likes this.
  6. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump decided to withdraw his decision to host the G7 at Doral. His decision will still be used against him in a court of law.

    Despite reversal, Trump’s Doral promotion will now be used against him in court
     
    bx4 likes this.
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,662
    Likes Received:
    32,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even if trump did this “at cost” — do you believe being able to advertise that there was a G7 summit at this resort would be beneficial to the trump hotels brand or on future occupancy?

    Will you be ok when future presidents steer public funds “at cost” to their personally owned entities?

    Also, do you know how easy it is to tweak costs to still make a real profit even after not making one on paper?

    Why not just hold trump to the same standards we always have?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    bx4 likes this.
  8. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,662
    Likes Received:
    32,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    MrTLegal and bx4 like this.
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump doubled the membership fee for Mira Lago from 100k to 200k when he was inaugurated.
     
    bx4 likes this.

Share This Page