Donald Trump, the "Twitter" POTUS

[horninchicago]

Frankly, many of us are sick and tired of politics as usual, being PC, and pandering to a liberal media. They have already shown more criticism and skepticism and fear of Trump in less than 2 weeks than they have in nearly 8 years of Obama. He is doing things on his own terms. Good.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Frankly, many of us are sick and tired of politics as usual, being PC, and pandering to a liberal media. They have already shown more criticism and skepticism and fear of Trump in less than 2 weeks than they have in nearly 8 years of Obama. He is doing things on his own terms. Good.

That's fine. Just know that Trump isn't always being truthful either. What's said and what's done is often in conflict in any administration. Question everything you read for bias, most importantly directly from the POTUS-elect.

 

[horninchicago]

That's fine. Just know that Trump isn't always being truthful either. What's said and what's done is often in conflict in any administration. Question everything you read for bias, most importantly directly from the POTUS-elect.

It is sage advice to always try to verify what people tell you. In that vein, please enlighten us with proof that Trump isn't always being truthful. You may be right, but I am questioning what I'm reading for bias.

 

[djimaplon]

dj?
So you think the Trump kids will do what Hillary did?
Or that Trump might do what Hillary did?
Now you are what 'iffin based on the Clinton sleaze
Nothing suggests Trump or his kids would
Versus we know Hillary did.

As I said, and will repeat since you didn't seem to get it the first time, it is PREMATURE to claim the high ground. I can only hope that you are not such a blind zealot that you cannot see that the same if not worse conflicts of interest exist with Trump's business interest, especially if his daughter is sitting in on diplomatic meetings and managing his "blind trust". perhaps it might be better that he follow the example set by every other US President by divesting his business interest to eliminate any possibility of impropriety. having his children manage his business does not qualify as a blind trust. not good optics.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You said it better that I could have. This is what I intended when I said that Trump is making the office look "small". Stay out the the juvenile pissing matches. You're about to be the most powerful man in the world...don't use it to bully some Broadway cast.

And to be clear, none of this has anything to do with whether one thinks the cast was out of line or not. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't. (I heard Mike Pence on Fox News Sunday, and he didn't seem to think they were out of line, and rather than ripping them, he raved about their performance.) Either way, it's beneath the President or President-elect to engage them in such a manner, and frankly, he shouldn't have time to do it. To put it succinctly, a statesman does what Pence did. A guy with small penis issues and too much time on his hands does what Trump did.

What's next? Is he going to start engaging in arguments with people in the comments sections on the various news websites? Hell, maybe we can get him to join Horn Fans.

 

[Mr. Deez]

dj?
So you think the Trump kids will do what Hillary did?
Or that Trump might do what Hillary did?
Now you are what 'iffin based on the Clinton sleaze
Nothing suggests Trump or his kids would
Versus we know Hillary did.

It doesn't matter if the Trump kids don't what Hillary did. They shouldn't be in a position to do it. He should do as past presidents have done. He should put his assets into a blind trust and make the trustee someone who doesn't have a personal relationship with him. This isn't required by law, but most past Presidents have done it to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

 

[iatrogenic]

It doesn't matter if the Trump kids don't what Hillary did. They shouldn't be in a position to do it. He should do as past presidents have done. He should put his assets into a blind trust and make the trustee someone who doesn't have a personal relationship with him. This isn't required by law, but most past Presidents have done it to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Hillary was specifically prohibited by law from engaging in matters deemed a conflict of interest.

As you stated, a blind trust is not required by law. The President and Vice President are exempted from conflict of interest laws that apply to appointed officers of the Executive Branch. There is a good reason for the exemption.

Although it may seem like the "honorable" thing to do, placing assets in a blind trust would, for the most part, be useless. Trump would know what assets are placed in the trust and, therefore, the trust would not be blind. Only assets acquired and sold after the establishment of the Trust would be unknown to the President.

Demanding a blind trust so that Trump's non-minor children could not participate in the management of those assets would, I am guessing, be unconstitutional with regards to those offspring.

The best, and only reasonable way to deal with this issue is to let Congress monitor the situation. If Trump makes specific decisions related to particular Trump assets, the court of public opinion will make a ruling. Requiring Trump to sell his assets is not going to happen.

The obvious exception to this, I am guessing, will be that any companies owned by Trump will no longer be able to sign government contracts.

 

[horninchicago]

A tweet by Kellyanne Conway posted on another thread by @Joe Fan shows why they are using Twitter. Apparently some of the brainiacs of Hamilton didn't even vote. I think one was the Professor who lectured Mike Pence. I'm sure the MSM is all over this story, but, of course, not voting will be painted as their right and have no bearing on speaking out like the jackass he is.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It doesn't matter if the Trump kids don't what Hillary did. They shouldn't be in a position to do it. He should do as past presidents have done. He should put his assets into a blind trust and make the trustee someone who doesn't have a personal relationship with him. This isn't required by law, but most past Presidents have done it to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Here is an example of why Trump should divest himself (and his kids) from his business holdings. You can't let your business holdings drive policy. Honestly, I'd be less concerned about his kids involvement in the administration if they weren't also planning to run his businesses.

Sidenote, does anyone think that this latest article by the NYT was the primary reason for Trump's drama about meeting with them this morning?

 

[Mr. Deez]

As you stated, a blind trust is not required by law. The President and Vice President are exempted from conflict of interest laws that apply to appointed officers of the Executive Branch. There is a good reason for the exemption.

Although it may seem like the "honorable" thing to do, placing assets in a blind trust would, for the most part, be useless. Trump would know what assets are placed in the trust and, therefore, the trust would not be blind. Only assets acquired and sold after the establishment of the Trust would be unknown to the President.

The idea of the blind trust is that the assets are liquidated before being deposited into the blind trust. That's how it becomes blind, and appointing someone who's at an arm's length from the owner as trustee keeps the trust blind.

And you are correct that it isn't required by law. He doesn't have to do it, but the expectation is that the President operate at a level of ethics that is better than merely avoiding criminality.

Demanding a blind trust so that Trump's non-minor children could not participate in the management of those assets would, I am guessing, be unconstitutional with regards to those offspring.

Again, nothing is being "demanded" of anybody, but no, it wouldn't be unconstitutional if the law did demand such a thing. The President's kids don't have a constitutional right to run their dad's company.

The best, and only reasonable way to deal with this issue is to let Congress monitor the situation. If Trump makes specific decisions related to particular Trump assets, the court of public opinion will make a ruling. Requiring Trump to sell his assets is not going to happen.

When one party controls Congress and the White House, this isn't going to happen for the same reason congressional Democrats didn't give a crap about Hillary's private e-mail server when they controlled Congress.

The obvious exception to this, I am guessing, will be that any companies owned by Trump will no longer be able to sign government contracts.

If the President is exempted from conflict of interest laws and we're OK with that, then why shouldn't they be allowed to compete for government contracts? Even if we assume that they shouldn't just because it looks sleazy, that wouldn't really clear up matters, because contracts could be given to companties that subcontract with Trump business entities, which would be tougher to trace.

Or of course, Trump could go with the blind trust, and it wouldn't matter if his companies were involved in government contracting.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If the President is exempted from conflict of interest laws and we're OK with that,

Does anyone else thing it's crazy that the POTUS and VPOTUS are not held to the same conflict of interest laws that cabinet members are? What the heck were our founders thinking? Did they think "if we put those laws in place George may not want to be POTUS?" or "We'd each have to liquidate our holdings when we become POTUS. Thomas (Jefferson), we can't do that!"

 

[Mr. Deez]

Does anyone else thing it's crazy that the POTUS and VPOTUS are not held to the same conflict of interest laws that cabinet members are? What the heck were our founders thinking? Did they think "if we put those laws in place George may not want to be POTUS?" or "We'd each have to liquidate our holdings when we become POTUS. Thomas (Jefferson), we can't do that!"

Yes, it is crazy, but I don't blame the founders. I blame Congress for granting the Presidency an exception.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes, it is crazy, but I don't blame the founders. I blame Congress for granting the Presidency an exception.

I can't fathom why though, can you?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I can't fathom why though, can you?

No. If anything, the President's conflicts rules should be stricter than the Cabinet's.

 

[iatrogenic]

The idea of the blind trust is that the assets are liquidated before being deposited into the blind trust. That's how it becomes blind, and appointing someone who's at an arm's length from the owner as trustee keeps the trust blind.

Not necessarily. The assets can be placed in a trust. Until sold, a conflict of interest still exists regarding those assets, however.

Again, nothing is being "demanded" of anybody, but no, it wouldn't be unconstitutional if the law did demand such a thing. The President's kids don't have a constitutional right to run their dad's company.

Are you saying the constitution prohibits the kids from running their dad's company, or are you just stating the obvious- that the constitution doesn't address this specifically (the same way it doesn't address where people go to lunch each day)?

If the President is exempted from conflict of interest laws and we're OK with that, then why shouldn't they be allowed to compete for government contracts? Even if we assume that they shouldn't just because it looks sleazy, that wouldn't really clear up matters, because contracts could be given to companties that subcontract with Trump business entities, which would be tougher to trace.

You are correct. There is nothing that should prevent Trump's companies from bidding on and obtaining government contracts as long as they follow the government's rules regarding contracting.

When one party controls Congress and the White House, this isn't going to happen for the same reason congressional Democrats didn't give a crap about Hillary's private e-mail server when they controlled Congress.

No, Trump is not going to sell his assets because the constitution doesn't require the selling of assets to become President. This is in recognition that successful people may want to run for office, as opposed to lifelong politicians and community organizers. Placing such financial restrictions on businessmen would eliminate qualified candidates.

Yes, it is crazy, but I don't blame the founders. I blame Congress for granting the Presidency an exception.

No its not crazy. The Position of President lasts 4 or 8 years. The individual still has a life to lead after office. You should blame the founders if you don't agree with the requirements to become President.

I can't fathom why though, can you?

Try this: the President is an individual. Every decision he makes could be seen as a conflict of interest.

 

[Joe Fan]

worth a listen

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

I kinda like that he uses twitter. Directly to everyone
Without the media spin

 

[djimaplon]

Yeah, we must believe everything he says because he is above reproach and the media are a bunch of dishonorable liars. Everything that is good and righteous is and will be attributable to him. Any suggestion otherwise is a product of the discredited media or people who hate America who's treasonous behavior should be dealt with by stripping of citizenship, jail or death. He is a master at manipulating the media and it is always left scrambling in his wake.

 

[Horn6721]

??
Whoa dj. take a deep breath.
Who on here or even in the media has stated everything Trump says or tweets must be believed?
Where did that come from ?

 

[djimaplon]

??
Whoa dj. take a deep breath.
Who on here or even in the media has stated everything Trump says or tweets must be believed?
Where did that come from ?

Ever heard of hyperbole? lol. Sorry to draw you offside, but perhaps you dont recognize the style (granted I am no where near as good as the master, despite my best efforts to layer in just a little bit of truth.) But hey, we live in an age where facts dont really seem to matter, where subjectivity rules objectivity and reality is whatever you can convince yourself and other to believe it to be. Or maybe we're just staring at shadows on the cave wall.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But hey, we live in an age where facts dont really seem to matter, where subjectivity rules objectivity and reality is whatever you can convince yourself and other to believe it to be. Or maybe we're just staring at shadows on the cave wall.

Lots of truth here.

 

[Joe Fan]

I thought this was funny

 

[I35]

I don't like Trump responding to Hollywood elites on twitter. They are just a waste of time for the rest of us with their arrogance of thinking they are smarter than the rest of us. He just gives them attention. But if that's our biggest complaint about President Trump then he's going to be a damn good President. I do like how he by passes the media when using twitter to talk to the American people. We don't need the media to gather info then tell us with a spin what he said. It's refreshing hearing directly from him. Plus it pisses off the left media so that's cool as well.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't like Trump responding to Hollywood elites on twitter. They are just a waste of time for the rest of us with their arrogance of thinking they are smarter than the rest of us. He just gives them attention. But if that's our biggest complaint about President Trump then he's going to be a damn good President. I do like how he by passes the media when using twitter to talk to the American people. We don't need the media to gather info then tell us with a spin what he said. It's refreshing hearing directly from him. Plus it pisses off the left media so that's cool as well.

In other words, you only want Trump's spin, without any of the context? You would have been OK with taking all Obama administration releases at face value then?

 

[I35]

But hey, we live in an age where facts dont really seem to matter, where subjectivity rules objectivity and reality is whatever you can convince yourself and other to believe it to be.

Times are definitely difference in just a few short years. Facts are now ignored by the media when it comes to one party. But I assure you the first time Trump tells a big whooper it will be weeks of bashing 24/7. These days the fact checkers have to be fact checked.

 

[I35]

In other words, you only want Trump's spin, without any of the context? You would have been OK with taking all Obama administration releases at face value then?

Actually I'd like to hear his own words and decide for myself. I don't need CNN to tell me what he said.

Example, I read where he stated what Assange said on his Twitter acct and I knew even before CNN stated one early morning that "Trump sides with Assange" at the bottom of the screen was a lie.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Actually I'd like to hear his own words and decide for myself. I don't need CNN to tell me what he said.

Example, I read where he stated what Assange said on his Twitter acct and I knew even before CNN stated one early morning that "Trump sides with Assange" at the bottom of the screen was a lie.

You must be more educated than the average media consumer or at least have more time to research all of his statements. What was your translation of his motivations for posting that information about Assange on the heels of calling what the Intelligence Agencies were providing "intelligence"?

 

[I35]

You must be more educated than the average media consumer or at least have more time to research all of his statements. What was your translation of his motivations for posting that information about Assange on the heels of calling what the Intelligence Agencies were providing "intelligence"?

It doesn't matter. If he didn't say "I agree" or "I side" then at that point you are putting words in his mouth. Now if he were to say "You can keep your doctor" there is no assumptions there.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It doesn't matter. If he didn't say "I agree" or "I side" then at that point you are putting words in his mouth. Now if he were to say "You can keep your doctor" there is no assumptions there.

Aha...many of his statements are the declarative equivalent of "you can keep your doctor".