OldGimletEye Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, Reny of Storms End said: I get that you were annoyed, and I agree it's a serious policy issue. I'm just saying one poster suggesting starting a new thread on the ACA isn't the final word on what you can and can't post. Talk about it if you want. Until a mod says otherwise you do you. Well, thanks for that. Will do. Now bring on the libertarian (or whatever it is) horseshit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 10 hours ago, Altherion said: I tried to find what is the precedent for such situations. The Motley Fool has a list of rich Presidents. As far as I can tell, none of those who had more than $100M at the time they became President sold off their holdings. The same is true of other high offices. George W. Bush sold his shares in the Texas Rangers in 1998 which means that he was Governor of Texas for years while owning them. Dick Cheney sold some Halliburton options in 2005 which means that he had held them for his first Vice-Presidential term. Based on all of this, I agree with you that it is not reasonable to expect that Trump will sell everything he has -- especially since much of his holdings is in real estate which is not easily liquidated. Some Presidents have done this, but many others have not and it is definitely not a requirement. I'm puzzled by the list you linked. What does the wealth of George Washington have to do with conflicts of interest in the 20th and 21st centuries? LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all voluntarily divested themselves of their assets. JFK lived off a trust fund, he didn't have to put his money in a trust, it was already there. LBJ, iirc, sold off his radio station chain when he became president. If Texas didn't have rules about conflicts of interest for governors, that's their loss. Because of what Nixon did, there was scandal attached to his finances which meant the Senate started demanding more disclosure and presidents started to release more of their tax returns. Jimmy Carter notoriously got hounded by Republicans even after he sold his peanut farm, ffs. Obama has not used a blind trust, because his assets are in mutual funds and other instruments he has no control over. Putting his assets in a blind trust would mean Trump would not have to sell his assets. Control is the issue, and handing them over to his sons to run does not remove that conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Here is some amusing proof that Republicans are well on their way to understanding the politics of identity/grievance/victimhood/etc.: Quote Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks said in a radio interview on Tuesday that criticism of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, is part of an ongoing "war on whites" by Democrats. "It's really about political power and racial division and what I've referred to on occasion as the 'war on whites.' They are trying to motivate the African-American vote to vote-bloc for Democrats by using every 'Republican is a racist' tool that they can envision," the Republican congressman said on "The Morning Show With Toni & Gary" on WBHP 800 Alabama radio. "Even if they have to lie about it." ... Brooks, who said in Tuesday's radio interview that he was under consideration by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley to replace Sessions in the US Senate, was defending Sessions in regard to his position on voting rights. "Well, to get right down to it, it's all about political power, and the Democrats are not shy about lying in order to achieve their political goals," he said. "And if they have to besmirch the reputation of a good man, Jeff Sessions, in order to achieve their political goals, they as a group are not hesitant to do so." Brooks managed everything in a few sentences. First, the appeal to an intrinsic identity in the face of a threat ("the war on whites"). Then, a specific individual being wronged (Jeff Sessions). And, of course, the repeated statement that all of this is driven by a nefarious adversary (the Democrats) in a quest for power by any means -- no matter how vile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Week said: I'm not sure you could even trust his answer: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/14/republicans_confuse_atlas_shrugged_for_the_bible_partner/ That's a great article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Altherion said: Here is some amusing proof that Republicans are well on their way to understanding the politics of identity/grievance/victimhood/etc.: Brooks managed everything in a few sentences. First, the appeal to an intrinsic identity in the face of a threat ("the war on whites"). Then, a specific individual being wronged (Jeff Sessions). And, of course, the repeated statement that all of this is driven by a nefarious adversary (the Democrats) in a quest for power by any means -- no matter how vile. Whites been playing identity politics for centuries. It only became a issue when others wanted to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, Week said: I'm not sure you could even trust his answer: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/14/republicans_confuse_atlas_shrugged_for_the_bible_partner/ Supply Side Jesus said,"Fuck the poor, for they are lazy". And,"Blessed Are the Orange Baboons, for they shall inherit the Earth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, TheKitttenGuard said: It only became a issue when others wanted to join. While were on the topic, interesting new research: http://www.nber.org/digest/jan17/w22797.html Quote Among working men, "the median earnings gap between blacks and white fell by almost 60 percent from 1940 to 1980 (with large decreases in the 1940s and 1960s) but has been essentially flat ever since, remaining in the 35-40 percent range in every sample from 1980-2014," the researchers report. But when they consider the entire population of men, they find that the earnings gap has actually widened substantially in recent decades. In 2010, the gap in the population as a whole was comparable to that in 1950. And: Quote "While the entire economy has experienced a marked increase in earnings inequality, this increase has been even more dramatic for black men," the researchers find, "with those at the top continuing to make clear gains within the earnings distribution, and those at the bottom being especially harmed by the era of mass incarceration and the failing job market for men with low skills." The impact of rising incarceration is particularly striking: The incarceration rate tripled for black men between 1980 and 2010, from 2.6 percent to 8.3 percent of the population. The rate quintupled for white men, but remained much lower, at 1.5 percent of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Well, thanks for that. Will do. Now bring on the libertarian (or whatever it is) horseshit!!! I do apologize if I came off as condescending. That was not my intent, but if it happened I am sorry for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, Reny of Storms End said: I do apologize if I came off as condescending. That was not my intent, but if it happened I am sorry for it. No worries. It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 6 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: But it's just fine when WikiLeaks does it...their info is gold no matter what! I thought that what WikiLeaks dumps on their site was authentic material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: Supply Side Jesus said,"Fuck the poor, for they are lazy". And,"Blessed Are the Orange Baboons, for they shall inherit the Earth." LOL! You're on a roll today OGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said: What does the wealth of George Washington have to do with conflicts of interest in the 20th and 21st centuries? Washington (and Jefferson and Madison) owned plantations which were one of the main forms of top-tier wealth at their time and presented clear conflicts of interest with respect to several contemporary political issues (the most obvious is slavery, but tariffs are also important). By the standards of that ethics official and several people in this thread, they should have been expected to sell their holdings upon entering office to avoid conflicts of interest -- but of course the idea would have been completely absurd at the time and I doubt it was even brought it up. 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said: LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all voluntarily divested themselves of their assets. Most of those either did not have any assets to speak of or had converted them to a cash or a similarly inoffensive form before they reached office. Carter did something weird with his peanut business; I'm not sure what exactly, but it was not sold off. I haven't looked into the others, although the Motley Fool article points out that Johnson almost certainly used his position as Senator to benefit his wife's radio business. 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said: JFK lived off a trust fund, he didn't have to put his money in a trust, it was already there. I think you are misunderstanding at least part of the issue. The wealth being in a trust fund is, in and of itself, not important. What matters is that it is in a blind trust. That is, the trustee does not know what assets are in the trust and thus no motivation of profit can influence his political actions. Kennedy almost certainly knew his father's business at least partially and if not, he was as close as a man can be to people who definitely knew it fully. 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said: Putting his assets in a blind trust would mean Trump would not have to sell his assets. Control is the issue, and handing them over to his sons to run does not remove that conflict. Again, I think you are a bit confused about why a blind trust is important. Control is a relatively minor part of the potential conflict. The main one is that Trump knows what his assets are and, unless they are sold, he will continue to know what they are even if he were to hand control over to an independent director. There is no way to make a blind trust out of real estate holdings because it is public knowledge who owns what and the prices are likewise publicly documented. This is why the only solution that truly avoids all conflicts of interest is for Trump to sell all of his holdings (which obviously isn't going to happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Obama letting his Marxist freak flag fly as he heads out the door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 You really can't make this stuff up at this point.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0 Quote An online C-Span broadcast from the House floor was interrupted on Thursday by a broadcast from RT, an English-language network controlled by the Russian government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, Commodore said: Obama letting his Marxist freak flag fly as he heads out the door Can you explain how this is 'Marxist'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, aceluby said: Can you explain how this is 'Marxist'? I don't know about it being Marxist, but that's Secret Muslim as fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: Because it is a serious policy issue that has been at the heart of US politics for the last six years. In fact, it has been probably a serious policy matter, with political ramifications, since Harry Truman first suggested a national healthcare service. I was seriously annoyed at the suggestion that it's not appropriate subject matter on a US Politics thread. Of course it's serious. However, I was merely suggesting that the direction the conversation had taken might have been more appropriate in another, separate thread where it could be concentrated upon. You know, how things tend to work around here sometimes. Seeing as no one else went with me and kept on I don't see why you felt the need to get your panties in a bunch. But whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 And brand spanking new file folders with no labels, no dog ears or signs of handling. He lies in ways that are absolutely unnecessary, and he's not even good at it. /I'm reminded of the table full of Trump Steaks during the primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 An interesting article by Matt Stoller that details problems with the Democratic Party and offers some insight into how Trump won. And the Obama administration reduced the privacy of Americans yet again. Truly, the US will/has become a surveillance state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, Commodore said: Obama letting his Marxist freak flag fly as he heads out the door Joe McCarthy? Is that you? I thought you drank yourself to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.