Donald Trump pulls his Doral property from consideration for G-7 after bipartisan blowback

Like a scammer has never tried that crap,, so how did the lawsuit pan out

 

And if you were able to defend that statement we could have a discussion. You keep running away and just hoping people will blindly accept, without reason or evidence, your baseless argument that an emolument can only refer to payments that exceed total costs.

 

If their case was so strong, why did they settle?

 

Accounting deals revenue and expenses, accounting is not optional, it is absolutely legally required for every business, accounting exists to determine profits, losses or break-even status of a business, accounting is how countless financial crimes are solved, prosecuted and convicted.

You really don't know

 

Senator Kennedy (R) on if the president should move "yes, mister president dont lead with your chin" "this (doral) just creates more controversy"

 

I’m pretty sure that out of the other 6 leaders, only the Japanese Minister plays golf. The others can sit there and watch the planes land at MIA. Fun stuff.

 

Perhaps. I think it was the first time that it sunk in that he could be in some trouble...

 

Don't take this minor humiliating experience personally. Just learn from it. See if you can memorize, in western law WHAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED. See, not that hard, is it? And you are yet to find a provision disallowing anything Trump attempted to do.

but good luck looking and do let us know if you find a clause or a part of a clause you think Trump has violated. Please do us all a favor and avoid clauses you think Trump will some day in the future violate, they will be ignored.

 

....your post makes absolutely no sense.

You think Doral's full finances are publicly available? You think that data gets turned over as soon as it occurs?

Hell, there was a big scoop on a story about trump cooking the books for the taxman and for investors and the story was about events that were several years old and required blind luck and FOIA requests.

So how the **** do you propose that Trump was going to verify his promise of hosting the G7 at cost? And more importantly, how do you know his definition of "at cost?"

 

Trump, by hosting the G7 in his own private resort, would have violated the Emoluments Clause.

Trump, by awarding himself a no-bid government contract, would have violated self-governing laws, but for the fact that the self-governing laws do not apply to the President or the Vice President.

 

They are available to the IRS, auditors and they'd be available to any legitimate investigation. Duh

Your claim that it's impossible for an investigation to find out if a business made a profit on a transaction or lost money or broke even is more ludicrous than your legal theories lol

 

If you say so dear, cause the Emoluments clause says no such thing. It's only a violation if gifts, titles, emoluments, offices accepted from foreign states are involved. None of that is applicable here, no gifts, no emoluments, no titles, no offices, not even foreign states as the event is financed by the host country.

Lol i'd love to see Trump impeached because he offered a venue at his expense to save taxpayers money and show foreign dignitaries a good time. Good luck

 

I didn't ask what your'e wearing, I asked for an answer to the question.

 

In order to say that revenue is not explicitly forbidden, you are going to have to explain how it isn't an emolument -- and, just a reminder, you've run away from any discussion involving the definition of the word "emolument" every time it has been brought up. Good luck actually addressing the argument at any point.

And this isn't the first time Trump has funneled payments to himself from the US government.

And, actually, no. The Constitution does not work under the assumption that anything not explicitly to the federal government is absolutely allowed to it. The 10th Amendment directly states that your assumption is a garbage fantasy.

 

One of these days you may attempt to ask yourself what the word "emolument" means. And congrats on once again pretending that there is only one emoluments clause despite your earlier claim that you supposedly know there is a domestic one as well.

 

I've said multiple times that Trump is in full compliance with both Emolument clauses.

You have never posted the quotes of either clause and you have never specified which part of it Trump has allegedly violated. Cowardly whining "but but there is another clause" without quoting it and pointing at the alleged violation is just that, cowardly insinuations of someone who has lost the debate.

 

Settled out of court

Not the only health violation it seems

 

Trump is facing more lawsuits

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/emoluments-en-banc-rehearing/index.html

 

You might find this quite educational. You're welcome

By the year 1480, when that entry was made, Latin emolumentum had come to mean simply "profit" or "gain";


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument

What part of simply profit or gain don't you understand? Lol Don't twist yourself into a pretzel trying to insinuate that "simply profit or gain" means revenue lol

 

Yes. And you've offered nothing to defend your "argument" except that insistence. Maybe Trump has you convinced otherwise, but "saying" something "multiple times" doesn't make it true. Trumpian "alternative facts" and "truth isn't true" arguments won't work here. Let's talk about real world facts. Please tell me you can at least agree to that much.

They've already been quoted. Now I'd like to talk about them. Which you steadfastly refuse to do. You won't even talk about the word "emolument." And interest in the facts isn't "cowardice." You should have words with whoever taught you that nonsense.

Are you now willing to discuss what the word "emolument" means or are you still avoiding the actual debate at every turn?

Baby steps, if that's what it takes:
- We can at least agree that a president can't receive an emolument from a foreign government, from the US government, or from any state, correct?
- So . . . what the **** do you think an emolument is?

You've tried arguing that an emolument can only mean net profit . . . revenue that exceeds costs, but as much as you want to flaunt the fact that you've produced quotes, none of your quotes actually say that.

Don't lecture people about imaginary "cowardice" until you are actually willing and able to participate in the debate. I've outlined how you can do that. Good luck.

 

FINALLY! Okay, now that you have actually joined the debate, notice it says profit OR gain. OR. I repeat: OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR. Let that sink in. You've already destroyed your argument that profit is all that counts. Unless you need an explanation for what the word "or" means too . . . please tell me that isn't the case.

Now, what is an example of a gain that isn't necessarily a net profit? I'm an MBA student, but you shouldn't need one for this question. Hint: it rhymes with shmevenue.

Eh, screw it. I'll just give you a 101. There's this stuff called "revenue." That's when you have income coming in. In other words, that's a gain. "Costs" are when it goes back out again. In other words, that's a loss. When you add up your gains and losses you get either a net loss or a net profit. But revenue is a gain whether it results in net profit or not. You are gaining when you get revenue. Your are advancing. If you gain enough to exceed your costs, that's a net profit.

So, you defined an emolument as a "profit" OR OR OR OR OR OR OR "gain." Get it now?

For more info, Georgetown Law has something to add:

 

Post the others.

 

I heard he really pulled this as foreign leaders were not going to go, that would of been a total flop for his property

 

yep, Trump would not of backed down unless it would of effected his bottom line, that is why I tend to believe the leaders of these countries were saying they would not go if the G7 was hosted at the Trump property

 

Lol, do tell how you're going to make the case that when the founding fathers used the word they knew to represent profit and gain and absolutely nothing else, they actually secretly meant revenue. They must have known that a blogger yardmeat would figure out their true intentions.

Lol dude good luck with your "profit and gain are the same as revenue" argument which is an economic legal and commonsensical absurdity.

 

I care because Trump gives me the schits.

 

link to that, Trump charges his secret service rent, do you really think he was not gonna profit off this?

the Trump's even charged a cancer charity to use his property, but said it would be free up front

"How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

"The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity's efficiency: Because he can get his family's golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," Trump tells Forbes."

 

Revenue is gain. Gain is revenue. Where did you get lost? That's when cash assets gain positive value. This ain't rocket surgery, bud. Please, please tell me what you don't understand about this simple concept. And, no, that isn't the same thing as profit, which you are about to falsely claim I stated . . . despite directly quoting me saying they aren't the same thing.

Do we need some reading comprehension 101 lessons injected here too? Really?

You are the one trying to rewrite the definition to mean profit alone, despite citing definitions that say you are wrong. Also, I don't blog. Can you make it two sentences without making something up?

It is absurd. It is also a falsehood. Which is why you put something in quotes that I never actually said. I never said profit is the same as revenue and you know that I didn't. You just quoted me making a distinction there that you now want to play make believe doesn't exist. If you are going to quote me, at least try telling the truth about my posts. Not that hard, really. Or it shouldn't be.

If defending Trump requires you to misrepresent people's posts, maybe find a new idol.

To reiterate, not that you seem to care about reading my posts or honestly representing them in any way: revenue only becomes profit if it exceeds costs. I never claimed that revenue and profit are the same thing. I've stated precisely the opposite ever since this "conversation" started. Try to tell the truth about that. I said revenue is a gain . . . because that's what the ****ing word means.