• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WSJ Calls on Trump to Liquidate His Holdings (Ongoing Conflict of Interest Thread)

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Trump was elected in large part due to his business success and relationships. Why would he get rid of them? They are what the electoral college obviously values.
The WSJ and most shrieking liberals continue to try to view him and his newfound position through the lens of historical politics and the presidency to mandate conformity. He was voted in as a giant middle finger to historical politics, historical roles of the president are out the window. So we'll sink or swim with his way as the new normal. As predicted, thanks Obama, the [Redacted] of presidents.
Click to expand...

interesting grouping here
 
So people who were skeptical of "pay to play" and such with the Clintons are in the "nothing to see here" camp now.
 
PhDeac said:
So people who were skeptical of "pay to play" and such with the Clintons are in the "nothing to see here" camp now.
Click to expand...

hmm and people that weren't skeptical of "pay to play" are upset? weird
 
Trump asked the President of Argentina about permits for personal projects in Argentina.
 
TWDeac said:
I wish we could get wikileaks aimed at Trump. It would be orders of magnitude more revealing than what we learned about Hillary.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. It might be similar. It might prove better for Trump. He has never held political office. So all his potential conflict issues are more or less in front of him right now relative to the public trust. All you have to know about Clinton and corruption is about to be proven out (although the Clinton's will no doubt be able to hide this since they are no longer in public life) by how few big time donations come the way of their foundation now that Hillary has no public pull. The WSJ is right, IMO, to call on Trump to divest. At the very least he should create a real blind trust - not some silly notion of one. Some of the calls on conflicts will be silly. Like if a group holds a meeting at his hotel. Very few of those are going to matter or create an appearance of impropriety. And it will be hard to show how he profited any more personally by having one group hold a meeting vs. some group no one cares about. But the potential for bad appearances that would be legitimate certainly exists and he should do the right thing here to avoid issues. We'll see what he does.
 
What are the odds that he actually discloses his tax returns? When he claimed that he'd do so once his audit was over he probably didn't expect to win.
 
Last edited:
Jamison2Carter said:
What are the odds that he actually discloses his tax returns? When he claimed that he'd do so once his audit was over, he probably didn't expect to win.
Click to expand...

He won't because he knows the people that voted for him don't care
 
The "Trump Won The Election So He Can Tell Everyone to F-off" attitude notwithstanding, it actually would be in his long term interest and help his ability to govern without being questioned at every turn to set up a blind-trust for his business interests ; he's not going to lose his businesses or his billions, but he represents the United States now, not Trump, Inc.; for his own credibility and for the country's credibility, it would be helpful if a reasonable ethical wall is established between his former and future business interests and the decisions the United States makes with Trump as President.

Honestly, it's issues like these that make it increasingly obvious that it's impossible to agree on even the most elementary detail. Sad that this is even a debatable point.
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
The "Trump Won The Election So He Can Tell Everyone to F-off" attitude notwithstanding, it actually would be in his long term interest and help his ability to govern without being questioned at every turn to set up a blind-trust for his business interests ; he's not going to lose his businesses or his billions, but he represents the United States now, not Trump, Inc.; for his own credibility and for the country's credibility, it would be helpful if a reasonable ethical wall is established between his former and future business interests and the decisions the United States makes with Trump as President.

Honestly, it's issues like these that make it increasingly obvious that it's impossible to agree on even the most elementary detail. Sad that this is even a debatable point.
Click to expand...

Not enough voters give a shit about his entanglements. As long as he makes left commielibs sad, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Because, YAY team!
 
Average Americans in Wisconsin and Michigan are tired of the same old shit from Washington. They lost their jobs, so they want a champion of the working man, someone who knows how to bring back jobs to America. Someone with ideas and acumen in this area, who has convinced them he knows exactly how to do it.


What do they do?

They vote in a man who has never done that and who, when confronted with that fact, reassured them by pointing out that by taking advantage of foreign labor he learned what to do to bring back American labor.




Sound reasoning, that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top