What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (11 Viewers)

dkp993 said:
No they are making educated guesses on a portion of his business.  They do not have access to his entire portfolio, but you already knew this.  
Click to expand...
So you are disputing Bloomberg. And the “you already knew this” comment is exactly what Joe doesn’t want here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
So you are disputing Bloomberg. And the “you already knew this” comment is exactly what Joe doesn’t want here.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t meant as a shot. Are you saying you didn’t know that? I believe you were cherry picking info to make a point.  If not I apologize.  

My point still stands about Bloomberg.  Unless they have full access to his portfolio they are stating only what they can speculate on.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And for the record I’m not saying he is or isn’t losing money.  Like everyone else I don’t know.  But again him not divesting interest in his company’s is very swamp-ish.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's pretty logical, if the Constitution can be enforced, then that will impact Trump. And the only way he is impacted is if the Constitution is enforced. That means losing the fight over the tax returns and exposing and maybe losing his revenues from public and foreign sources.
Click to expand...
Did I dispute that?  No.

 
dkp993 said:
And for the record I’m not saying he is or isn’t losing money.  Like everyone else I don’t know.  But again him not divesting interest in his company’s is very swamp-ish.  
Click to expand...
The article stated he put assets in the trust, you really expect him to liquidate a generations old family business for four (actually probably Eight) years in office? There is no possible way to sell that much real estate within that time period and get market value much less in the month before taking office. It’s really amazing the things people will complain about, he never disguised himself as a career politician his profession was well known before elected. 

 
GoBirds said:
The article stated he put assets in the trust, you really expect him to liquidate a generations old family business for four (actually probably Eight) years in office? There is no possible way to sell that much real estate within that time period and get market value much less in the month before taking office. It’s really amazing the things people will complain about, he never disguised himself as a career politician his profession was well known before elected. 
Click to expand...
I think there’s many issues, first the trust isn’t a blind trust which is what it should’ve been, secondly while it certainly is a massive sacrifice he’s the one choosing to become President, no one forced him to do this.  I think a blind trust would have gone along way towards establishing credibility especially when you ran on draining the swamp. When you don’t disclose your finances (unprecedented in modern times) and really don’t relinquish control of your companies it leaves massive questions.  Fair questions. Questions that have nothing to do with Trump the person but would be asked of anyone acting the same way   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/donald-trump-to-place-business-holdings-in-a-trust-run-by-adult-sons-1484152201

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
I think there’s many issues, first the trust isn’t a blind trust which is what it should’ve been, secondly while it certainly is a massive sacrifice he’s the one choosing to become President, no one forced him to do this.  I think a blind trust would have gone along way towards establishing credibility especially when you ran on draining the swamp. When you don’t disclose your finances (unprecedented in modern times) and really don’t relinquish control of your companies it leaves massive questions.  Fair questions. Questions that have nothing to do with Trump the person but would be asked of anyone acting the same way   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/donald-trump-to-place-business-holdings-in-a-trust-run-by-adult-sons-1484152201
Click to expand...
The bolded is true, and our country chose to elect him knowing his business situation and that there was no realistic way to dissolve the business and I wouldn’t want him to. The only people complaining about it are the ones that find anything they can to complain about because they are unhappy he got elected. If it was a blind trust they would find the next thing to complain about. What you got is what everyone knew going in. 

 
GoBirds said:
The bolded is true, and our country chose to elect him knowing his business situation and that there was no realistic way to dissolve the business and I wouldn’t want him to. The only people complaining about it are the ones that find anything they can to complain about because they are unhappy he got elected. If it was a blind trust they would find the next thing to complain about. What you got is what everyone knew going in. 
Click to expand...
The bolded is likely true, lots of dislike for Trump out there no question.  But had he blind trusted and had he disclosed his finances (like everyone else) then at least he had taken one step toward distancing himself from the swamp. He chose not to, leaving lots of questions unanswered.  

 
dkp993 said:
The bolded is likely true, lots of dislike for Trump out there no question.  But had he blind trusted and had he disclosed his finances (like everyone else) then at least he had taken one step toward distancing himself from the swamp. He chose not to, leaving lots of questions unanswered.  
Click to expand...
I disagree, you and the rest would find the next thing to try to claim “swamp”. Good for him to draw the line somewhere or it would be worse than it is. He’s not going to win over the daily complaining types that are obsessed with him, why try. 

 
dkp993 said:
The bolded is likely true, lots of dislike for Trump out there no question.  But had he blind trusted and had he disclosed his finances (like everyone else) then at least he had taken one step toward distancing himself from the swamp. He chose not to, leaving lots of questions unanswered.  
Click to expand...
Time will tell

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds said:
I disagree, you and the rest would find the next thing to try to claim “swamp”. Good for him to draw the line somewhere or it would be worse than it is. He’s not going to win over the daily complaining types that are obsessed with him, why try. 
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt you’d be as magnanimous under different circumstances. But hey it is what it is. We’re all just Internet strangers talking politics on a football forum, we’re all not gonna agree.  
 

Nice win for Philly today. 

 
GoBirds said:
The article stated he put assets in the trust, you really expect him to liquidate a generations old family business for four (actually probably Eight) years in office? There is no possible way to sell that much real estate within that time period and get market value much less in the month before taking office. It’s really amazing the things people will complain about, he never disguised himself as a career politician his profession was well known before elected. 
Click to expand...
He could have put his business into a blind trust. 

 
GoBirds said:
The bolded is true, and our country chose to elect him knowing his business situation and that there was no realistic way to dissolve the business and I wouldn’t want him to. The only people complaining about it are the ones that find anything they can to complain about because they are unhappy he got elected. If it was a blind trust they would find the next thing to complain about. What you got is what everyone knew going in. 
Click to expand...
I agree that it is totally unrealistic to expect Trump to divest himself completely of his assets.   This isn’t a peanut farm.  
 

I also think that it was realistic and, in fact there was an ethical obligation to, put his interest in a blind trust given the circumstances.  And, of course, given the unique situation, ethics further required that he release his tax returns so everything was above board.  anyone else would have.  
 

But not Trump, because his almost certainly questionable (if not criminal) financial dealings would be exposed.  And his house of cards would blow over.  
 

So, notwithstanding Trump’s unique circumstances that arguably ethically require more transparent disclosure, We get the exact opposite because, you know, Trump.  
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds said:
I disagree, you and the rest would find the next thing to try to claim “swamp”. Good for him to draw the line somewhere or it would be worse than it is. He’s not going to win over the daily complaining types that are obsessed with him, why try. 
Click to expand...
Help me understand how it would be worse than it is if he put his assets in a blind trust and filed the financial disclosures every other modern president has?  Even if everything he is doing with his business is perfectly acceptable, it gives the appearance that it’s not.  

Sure, there are other things he’s done worth complaining about, but I’d prefer to have less to complain about 

 
zoonation said:
I agree that it is totally unrealistic to expect Trump to divest himself completely of his assets.   This isn’t a peanut farm.  
 

I also think that it was realistic and, in fact there was an ethical obligation to, put his interest in a blind trust given the circumstances.  And, of course, given the unique situation, ethics further required that he release his tax returns so everything was above board.  anyone else would have.  
 

But not Trump, because his almost certainly questionable (if not criminal) financial dealings would be exposed.  And his house of cards would blow over.  
 

So, notwithstanding Trump’s unique circumstances that arguably ethically require more transparent disclosure, We get the exact opposite because, you know, Trump.  
 
Click to expand...
In my opinion "Blind Trust" is just a cool buzz word that those that complain about Trump daily like to use but common sense tells you would never be realistic. Once elected, he was in office within a couple months and a blind trust if able to set up in that timeframe would be run by a 3rd party trustee.........how would that ever work? If it's some he's already associated with and trusts then there will be complaints of conflict of interest. If you allow a totally random 3rd party trustee to take over and it's a Never Trump type like some you find in here his company could, be destroyed.....who in their right mind would ever subject their family business that's been around for generations to this? Voters all knew his situation well before the election and still voted for him because he was the better choice. It's just a weak talking point that could never realistically work in my opinion. 

Also with your claims of questionable/criminal dealings can you provide proof as those are strong claims? I disagree, if I have anything to hide the last thing I'm doing is running for office and putting my business in the public eye. Just another talking point that probably doesn't warrant the time in this thread.  

 
GoBirds said:
In my opinion "Blind Trust" is just a cool buzz word that those that complain about Trump daily like to use but common sense tells you would never be realistic. Once elected, he was in office within a couple months and a blind trust if able to set up in that timeframe would be run by a 3rd party trustee.........how would that ever work? If it's some he's already associated with and trusts then there will be complaints of conflict of interest. If you allow a totally random 3rd party trustee to take over and it's a Never Trump type like some you find in here his company could, be destroyed.....who in their right mind would ever subject their family business that's been around for generations to this? Voters all knew his situation well before the election and still voted for him because he was the better choice. It's just a weak talking point that could never realistically work in my opinion. 

Also with your claims of questionable/criminal dealings can you provide proof as those are strong claims? I disagree, if I have anything to hide the last thing I'm doing is running for office and putting my business in the public eye. Just another talking point that probably doesn't warrant the time in this thread.  
Click to expand...
Sure. Trump University.  
 

and, a “blind trust” isn't a cool buzzword.  It has legal meaning and is used all the time to avoid ethical issues and conflicts of interest.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation said:
Sure. Trump University.  
 

and, a “blind trust” isn't a cool buzzword.  It has legal meaning and is used all the time to avoid ethical issues and conflicts of interest.    
Click to expand...
You said "Would be exposed...", is Trump University still active and you are saying it is currently doing illegal things?

Completely disagree on the trust in this application. 

 
GoBirds said:
Acting like the Presidency is some kind of net gain for Trump is one of the most hilarious things I’ve read. He went from being just some famous rich dude with more money than he knew what to do with to the least popular person in the world with many on the left completely obsessed and filled with hatred for him. He’s losing overall and it’s not close. Let’s not fill this thread with these kind of talking points please. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

It really is unbelievable. When I hear people squeal “emoluments” and “he’s enriching himself from the Presidency” I laugh. President Trump was already one of the richest and most successful people in this country. The amount of hatred from the media/Democrats has clearly cost his businesses overall since then. I

 
Kyle Griffin@kylegriffin1

Breaking via CNBC: A federal appeals court has ruled that Trump's tax returns must be turned over to a state grand jury. The panel rejected Trump's argument that he's immune as president from criminal investigation while in the White House.

I am not even sure where this goes - so I'll probably cross-post in a couple of threads...

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Nice to see athletes who are confident enough to stand up for their beliefs knowing full well that a certain segment of this country will call them Nazis.

Suzuki was attacked, as expected, by the blue check mafia. Being called all sorts of names. Calling for MLB to fire him.

Another blue checker tweeted an edited video to imply Strasburg didn't shake Trump's hand. Strasburg retweeted him with #Fake News. The coward deleted his tweet and made his account private as a result.

It is heartwarming to see people standing up to the hatred and propaganda spewed by certain members of the media and Twitter mafia.
Click to expand...
It really is sickening behavior and good to see it’s being called out. So pathetic. 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
FOIA requests show that Burisma did in fact pay to influence the State Department to back off the investigation. Right before Joe Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

I look forward to seeing the Ukraine inquiry boomerang just like the Russia Collusion hoax.
Click to expand...
If the other "side" did something wrong, lock them up.  I have no problem with outing corruption for all sides.  Drain the swamp so to speak

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
FOIA requests show that Burisma did in fact pay to influence the State Department to back off the investigation. Right before Joe Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company.
Click to expand...
The email is from late February 2016. Biden visited Ukraine December 2015. So, no, it wasn’t ‘right before’, it was over two months after. And it was a request from a lawyer to meet at State. Meanwhile the lawyer for Firtash, Parnas and Fruman *got meetings at DOJ with Bill Barr and Brian Benczkowski, head of the DOJ criminal division. And Giuliani was doing this while representing the President.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
yak651 said:
If the other "side" did something wrong, lock them up.  I have no problem with outing corruption for all sides.  Drain the swamp so to speak
Click to expand...
Yes...but give me something better than John Solomon reporting on it...and his take on what the emails say.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Trump is tweeting about the cartels, hinting at taking them out, with Mexico's cooperation of course.

This is long overdue.

Cartels kill more Americans each year then right wing and left wing terrorists combined. Not to mention the drugs, the rapes, the bribery, the beheadings. All in all bad hombres.

I don't know how feasible it would be, especially with our own CIA, FBI, and DEA so intertwined with the cartels, they are a cash machine for both sides of the border.

Would be nice to see them eliminated though. 
Click to expand...
While it's clearly an issue both sides should agree on, I don't see this gaining much support for action. 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Biden visited Ukraine lots of times, not sure why you cherry pick a date from December 2015? 

The Biden visit relevant to my actual post occured in March 2016, just weeks after Burisma tried to influence the State Department. (The visit where Biden bribed the Ukraine government with a billion dollars to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma)
Click to expand...
Biden visited in December 2015. - Here is his speech to Parliament (Rada).

Glad to look at anything you have that indicates a March 2016 visit, but I don't think that happened.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Biden visited Ukraine lots of times, not sure why you cherry pick a date from December 2015? 

The Biden visit relevant to my actual post occured in March 2016, just weeks after Burisma tried to influence the State Department. (The visit where Biden bribed the Ukraine government with a billion dollars to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma)
Click to expand...
“Biden bribed”? This seems rather a Rush Limbaugish way to describe what happened and not accurate. 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
It appears you were correct in your nitpick, Biden visited Ukraine 12-15 times by his own admission, and the quid pro quo of withholding a billion dollars in aid unless the prosecutor was fired was an ongoing process. He visited in December 2015 and initiated the quid pro quo, and then followed up over the phone and in person at meetings in Europe and DC. The quo was received unofficially in Feb/March with the resignation and finalized in April with the vote. Doesn't really change the fact that Biden withheld a billion dollars (admitted on video) or that Burisma was under investigation and attempting to influence the State Dept to back off (memos linked in my previous post)

Thanks for your fact checking though, always good to have specific dates nailed down!
Click to expand...
Why was Biden pressuring the prosecutor to be removed? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
462
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top