Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Fool Moon
Photo
* * * - - 1 votes

Can Trump's International Business Dealings Violate The Constitution?


8 replies to this topic

#1 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,437 posts

Posted 22 November 2016 - 10:16 PM

A legal debate is heating up around a provision called the Emoluments Clause. Experts are examining whether Trump can legally continue dealing with companies controlled by foreign governments.

npr-rss-pixel.png?story=503091109

View the full article

#2 Lord Viskey

Lord Viskey

    new member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 09:44 AM

In my opinion, everything about Trump is a violation that will run against the grain of every "less important" American.

 

I'm expecting a whole new universe of laws being written into the American constitution and business practices during this term.

 

And not that I trust the civilian demonstrations in this country against him to change anything (for the better), I suspect that they will result in the escalation of Marshall laws in some cases, and more civilian violence in the long run.... but hey ... why not destroy America from inside while you're offending the rest of the world at large. 

 

I believe Trump has already started another war - but this one has everything thing to do with his delusions of "self importance" - and not with natural resources, foreign countries, religious perspectives, or illegal aliens. Of course, this is not to say that all these things will not be adversely affected by it, in the duration of his term though.

 

I cannot see how the ownership of (11?) businesses in foreign countries will keep an American president neutral in any dealings with foreign policies - looks like he'd probably have to make a daily decision as to whether he wants to "shoot himself in his right foot or his left foot" ... cuz he's either going to have to cater to the foreign country or cater to the American employee in every "appearance" or "decision" regarding the two.



#3 aus

aus

    loyal member

  • longstanding member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,278 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 06:59 PM

I can not see what Trump has announced so far being much difference with previous republican administration. Regan owned many businesses and Bush had strong business contacts.



#4 mmoghand

mmoghand

    member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

In my opinion, everything about Trump is a violation....

 

That's about it. People have taken care of Trump his whole life. Obscenely so.

 

If it wasn't faking "bone spurs" to get out of the Vietnam draft then he was getting the first gambling license at Atlantic City while doing construction contracts with S & A Construction. The latter included building Trump Tower. (Yeah, a mob operation.)

 

FBI neglects to do a background check on him.

 

IRS neglects/refuses to check Trump's 1995 $900,000,000 carry loss and its relation to his 2004 bankruptcy. (The bankruptcy negated that loss. You can figure out the rest.)

 

Sexual assault... hell, that's the norm for Trump. Worse and racist spew is on tape but you're not going to hear it.

 

Taking care of Trump is an industry.

 

There's also overseas money. Giveaway to Apple = giveaway to Trump.



#5 aus

aus

    loyal member

  • longstanding member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,278 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

It seems pointless attacking Trump. There have been many American Presidents who owned business. avoided the draft. Went  close to bankruptcy  and made sexual and racial

 remarks,

Clinton, Kennedy, Regan and Bush for example.

Even in Australia w have had prime minister who treated women badly.  For example Holt and Hawke who betrayed their wives,

Some like the president Prime Minister were  business men although not bankrupt as this is illegal for members of parliament here.



#6 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,437 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

Aus, why are you repeatedly recommending that no-one resist Trump?  In America we all have the right to resist, to voice our opinion whether it is positive or negative, to demonstrate in public to make our opinions known.

 

As this is an American affair, the relevance of how Australians decided to embrace immoral, or dishonest, or incompetent leaders doesn't actually apply.

 

More than half of all recorded votes in this recent election were for trump's opponent, not for trump.  The majority of the American people do not like trump as a person, nor his policies, and many of us have legitimate fears about his potential impulsive ans irresponsible misuse of great power. 

 

This is a time of great change in America, and under trump the way we relate to other countries (including Australia) could change drastically, given trump's isolationist, protectionist, populist, racist, oligarchic, demagogic, and fascistic beliefs.  If Australia feels as though it has a dependable ally in the United States, trump may be bringing them an unpleasant surprise. This American election will affect nearly every country on earth, and only a simpleminded optimist would assume all for the better.



#7 Lord Viskey

Lord Viskey

    new member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

How about another word from a simple minded ...  (in this case) ... "pessimist"  ... like myself ...? ...

 

call me superstitious  ...  and given what I think about the guy (as a person in the first place) ... 

 

... but I found it completely unsettling one day when the news media was discussing Trump and his relatives as they considered what to do with the asset that might have been called; "Trump Tower" (not actually sure if that's what the building was) ...

 

... cuzz when the TV screen showed the massive building and pointed the camera upwards to its address, I was practically paralyzed to see these gigantic polished metal numerals there glistening in the light ...  the address was ... "666".... everything else they were saying just sort of fell on deaf ears after I saw that.

 

Now, that to me, was the epitome of what I think about this guy .... Just sayin'... :mellow:



#8 aus

aus

    loyal member

  • longstanding member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,278 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

HeliceI wrote elsewhere that I support peaceful protests. Wether there was violence   in the protests is debatable. I have taken part in many protests but never supported violence. You have the right to demonstrate against immoral, dishonest or incompetent leaders. Whether Trump is any of these is yet to be seen.

 

I can only go on policies announced . He  has indicated he will make abortion harder. You can object to this but as a Catholic I support this. He has announced that,  He has said that he will not join  the NAFTA Trans Pacific Partnership. This  has worry the Australian government. But  surely he as the right to act in what he thinks American interest. The Australian government policy to continued with NAFTA without the USA but possibly China seems strange. Is the Chinese President more reliable,. moral of honest than Trump?

 

I am sure I will oppose other policies but will wait to they are announced. I am not a pessimist and are hopeful  that he worst will not happen.


Edited by aus, 4 weeks ago.


#9 aus

aus

    loyal member

  • longstanding member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,278 posts

Posted 3 weeks ago

I am opposed to Trump policies on migration. A ban on immigration for some Muslim countries seems discriminating . Why is not Saudi Arabia where most othe9./11 terrorist came from is not included.

Banning migration from certain countries will split families and could lead to more terrorist attacks inside the USA.





Reply to this topic



  


Copyright © 2017 Fool Moon LLC