Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Oath Breaking

Oath Breaking
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 06:57 PM
 
Any bets on how long before he breaks his oath?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Also, what part will he break first?

Of the possible break points, "solemnly" is the only simple one since it would have to be broken during the ceremony itself. Also possibly the only break that I wouldn't worry about.

Most (all?) Presidents fail to preserve/protect/defend the Constitution to the best of their ability, so this technically isn't picking on just Trump.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 07:38 PM
 
I heard he was already working on an executive order within hours of being sworn in. Assuming he doesn't have a pile of them ready to go already.

Not sure how you'd measure it but I don't expect him to execute anything faithfully.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 10:57 PM
 
So, Obama using Executive Orders was ok, but when Trump does it, it's oath breaking ?

The fycking hypocrisy is breathtaking.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So, Obama using Executive Orders was ok, but when Trump does it, it's oath breaking ?

The fycking hypocrisy is breathtaking.

-t

How did Obama enter this conversation?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How did Obama enter this conversation?
Because he just recently issued many executive orders.

I just want to understand what changed in regards to executive orders, now that Trumpis in charge.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2017, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Because he just recently issued many executive orders.

I just want to understand what changed in regards to executive orders, now that Trumpis in charge.

-t

When did the poster say that he was in favour of Obama doing this? Do you feel like you tried to change the topic abruptly?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When did the poster say that he was in favour of Obama doing this? Do you feel like you tried to change the topic abruptly?
Stop being so dishonest.
It was clearly insinuated by Wartagainstsleep.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Stop being so dishonest.
It was clearly insinuated by Wartagainstsleep.

-t
It doesn't matter if that is what he was insinuating, it doesn't make a sentiment like this productive.

For one, new presidents get that clean slate effect. Is this and his press secretary's "alternative facts" a good way to start a presidency that was all about swamp draining?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
.....and will to the best of my ability,
Loop hole.

A partially built wall is about the only thing I expect to come to fruition as it's the easiest of the things he's promised. Politicians are politicians.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 01:00 AM
 
Well, he might be in breach of the Emoluments Clause already. Trump apparently hasn't even stuck to his own divestment plans, which were deemed wholly insufficient by the head of the Government Ethics Office (and most other people with a brain). Plus, he finally admitted he won't disclose his tax returns, so we won't know of other conflicts of interests. The Industrual and Commercial Bank of China is one of the largest tenants in Trump Tower and Trump has loans with the Bank of China that could amount to tens or more than hundred million dollars (I couldn't find exact numbers, but the NYT article speaks of a loan of $950 million on the whole building across several banks, and doesn't stipulate how large Trump's share in the building is). Trump has long-standing business relations with Russia, and if you are a business man in Russia, it is clear that you need to be on good terms with the Kremlin. Trump himself has admitted that he was offered favorable business deals, but he claimed to have declined the opportunities — even though, according to President Trump, he didn't have to because the President is “exempt” from conflicts of interests.

Given how the official first press conference went, we can't take anything the White House says at face value.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
A partially built wall is about the only thing I expect to come to fruition as it's the easiest of the things he's promised. Politicians are politicians.
… paid for with American tax dollars.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 02:18 AM
 
Every POTUS breaks their oath at some point.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So, Obama using Executive Orders was ok, but when Trump does it, it's oath breaking ?

The fycking hypocrisy is breathtaking.
True that. Although I didn't expect it would be this soon, not long ago I warned people on this very forum what would happen when someone they despise takes up the outrageous amount of power that Obama carved out for the Executive branch, and now that day is here. Instead of cheering for all the "progressive" policies that Barry penned into law, perhaps you should have been asking yourselves if his methods were right in the first place? While you may have enjoyed all that when your side was in office, with just as much ease it can be stripped away, due to the lack of checks and balances.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So, Obama using Executive Orders was ok, but when Trump does it, it's oath breaking ?

The fycking hypocrisy is breathtaking.

-t
Didn't Obama typically wait to lose a vote before reaching for his XO pen though? I was more bothered by the idea that Trump doesn't care to even try to do things the right way, even with a majority in both houses. Just straight to the bypass. His word is law.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
True that. Although I didn't expect it would be this soon, not long ago I warned people on this very forum what would happen when someone they despise takes up the outrageous amount of power that Obama carved out for the Executive branch, and now that day is here. Instead of cheering for all the "progressive" policies that Barry penned into law, perhaps you should have been asking yourselves if his methods were right in the first place? While you may have enjoyed all that when your side was in office, with just as much ease it can be stripped away, due to the lack of checks and balances.
Perhaps the right should have taken the lack of checks and balances into account when they voted for a corrupt, lying, narcissistic, insecure trust fund brat?

The thing about the establishment was, it was established that you had to at least try to make it look like whatever dastardly shit you were up to was really good, honest, beneficial or at the very least, gone about in the right way. The new paradigm for politics is lie through your teeth, tell everyone exactly what they want to hear, then do whatever the hell you want. And this is not the fault of the left.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 09:42 AM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Didn't Obama typically wait to lose a vote before reaching for his XO pen though? I was more bothered by the idea that Trump doesn't care to even try to do things the right way, even with a majority in both houses. Just straight to the bypass. His word is law.
I think that is a good point: I don't think Obama should have used executive orders to the extent that he did, but in Trump's case, he doesn't have to. His executive order to “stop TPP”, for instance, is gratuitous — TPP hasn't been ratified yet, and from the looks of it, won't be. It seems like yet another potential unforced error by the GOP.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Perhaps the right should have taken the lack of checks and balances into account when they voted for a corrupt, lying, narcissistic, insecure trust fund brat?
How is that even an argument? "We can abuse the system because we think our guy is more responsible with absolute power". Pathetic.

The thing about the establishment was, it was established that you had to at least try to make it look like whatever dastardly shit you were up to was really good, honest, beneficial or at the very least, gone about in the right way. The new paradigm for politics is lie through your teeth, tell everyone exactly what they want to hear, then do whatever the hell you want. And this is not the fault of the left.
I'm aware that the Left is mostly concerned about how something looks rather than its function (a reason why labels mean so much to them), you aren't telling us anything new. I do agree that Dem politicians are much better liars, though.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think that is a good point: I don't think Obama should have used executive orders to the extent that he did, but in Trump's case, he doesn't have to. His executive order to “stop TPP”, for instance, is gratuitous — TPP hasn't been ratified yet, and from the looks of it, won't be. It seems like yet another potential unforced error by the GOP.
I can only imagine that the Left never thought Obama's broad use (re. abuse) of EOs would catch up with them. Anything that one person can create so easily, another can take away with equal ease. Barry's figuring that out now, as his legacy is erased one pen stroke at a time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 11:09 AM
 
Alternative facts, alternative math, what is an oath anyhow? He never said an oath. You saw it wrong.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can only imagine that the Left never thought Obama's broad use (re. abuse) of EOs would catch up with them.
Shockingly, the facts don't support your assertion.

By numbers of Executive Orders issued by Presidents, Obama is 16th on the list, behind modern era Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Ford, George W, Johnson and not far ahead of single term (or not two full term) presidents Ford, Kennedy and George HW.

Source
I know these facts don't fit your 'narrative,' but the good news is we can have 'alternative facts' now, so maybe you're covered.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 11:29 AM
 
and I wasn't talking about the number he signed, either, which is why I didn't point it out (I would have said extensive, not broad). Talk about "alternative facts".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think that is a good point: I don't think Obama should have used executive orders to the extent that he did, but in Trump's case, he doesn't have to. His executive order to “stop TPP”, for instance, is gratuitous — TPP hasn't been ratified yet, and from the looks of it, won't be. It seems like yet another potential unforced error by the GOP.
I agree.

I think Trump is basically just trying to position himself as a strong-minded dictator-esque force, for lack of better language (calling him an outright dictator at this point seems possibly dramatic).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can only imagine that the Left never thought Obama's broad use (re. abuse) of EOs would catch up with them. Anything that one person can create so easily, another can take away with equal ease. Barry's figuring that out now, as his legacy is erased one pen stroke at a time.

The same is true of the years of obstruction caused by Republican-led congress. If the Democrats gain control, it seems inevitable that they will respond in kind, and we'll have the inevitable right-wingers complaining about this while they didn't complain while it was them doing this. If they do the cycle will be complete, and if effective will continue for years and years.

Hopefully if the Democrats do obstruct it will be for reasons that are far more rational than the obstruction of Merrick Garland.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 03:51 PM
 
What President Trump has signed so far:
An order that directs federal agencies to ease the “regulatory burdens” of ObamaCare. It orders agencies to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of ObamaCare that imposes a “fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers as a way to shrink the size of government. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing.

He signed a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Trump called the order "a great thing for the American worker."

An order to reinstate the so-called "Mexico City Policy" – a ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. The policy was instituted in 1984 by President Reagan, but has gone into and out of effect depending on the party in power in the White House.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and I wasn't talking about the number he signed, either, which is why I didn't point it out (I would have said extensive, not broad). Talk about "alternative facts".
You are absolutely correct, and I apologise unreservedly for my misinterpretation of your statement.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Shockingly, the facts don't support your assertion.

By numbers of Executive Orders issued by Presidents, Obama is 16th on the list, behind modern era Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Ford, George W, Johnson and not far ahead of single term (or not two full term) presidents Ford, Kennedy and George HW.
I think, though, that there is an argument to be made that Presidents should rely less on Executive Orders. During Obama's Presidency, Executive Orders were in part used as a patch for the disfunctional legislature. While I understand that, I still think Executive Orders should either only be used if Congress has granted certain powers directly to the President or in cases of emergency. Just like Obama's failings to cut back the surveillance state, he should have relied less on executive orders than he did — even though I understand why he did what he did (rock, meet hard place). On the other hand, I think all the people here who come out criticizing Obama for overusing executive orders should rather spend their time criticizing Trump, now that he is president. Let him show the way how it is done better. I suspect, though, that it'll ring as hollow as Trump's criticism of Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton that they were in the pocket of Goldmann Sachs (says the guy who hired >= 6 Goldmann Sachs alumni and plans to ask Carl Icahn for help with SEC regulations). Making valid points is pointless if you are worse than the person who you criticize.

In case of Trump, though, he seemingly uses executive orders for show, there is no necessity for him as the GOP is under Trump's control and in control of both chambers of Congress. His ACA and TPP executive orders are vapid statements, for instance, because only Congress can change the ACA and the TPP hasn't been ratified yet (which means it is not a US law in the first place).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Hopefully if the Democrats do obstruct it will be for reasons that are far more rational than the obstruction of Merrick Garland.
This, I think, is my biggest worry, that politicians from all sides “learn” from the GOP's tactics in the legislature and from Trump's campaign, namely that obstructionism works (in the short term) and that truth is overrated. And I am afraid that the damage is done, the certainty's gone.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The same is true of the years of obstruction caused by Republican-led congress. If the Democrats gain control, it seems inevitable that they will respond in kind, and we'll have the inevitable right-wingers complaining about this while they didn't complain while it was them doing this. If they do the cycle will be complete, and if effective will continue for years and years.

Hopefully if the Democrats do obstruct it will be for reasons that are far more rational than the obstruction of Merrick Garland.
Why would the Right complain, Trump can now do virtually anything with an EO (thanks to Obama's horrible precedent)?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why would the Right complain, Trump can now do virtually anything with an EO (thanks to Obama's horrible precedent)?
The point was they should have complained when their guys were just obstructing everything for the sake of it instead of doing their jobs. This is what forced Obama to establish the precedent in the first place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 03:03 AM
 
"They made him abuse his power!"

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why would the Right complain, Trump can now do virtually anything with an EO (thanks to Obama's horrible precedent)?
However, Trump isn't forced to use these powers, and if you are a constitutionalist, you'd push for Trump rolling some of this back independently of what Obama has or hasn't done. Obama hasn't been the first, this is a process that has gone on for >100 years. There was a time when only Congress could declare war, for example

Besides that, except for stroking Trump's ego there is no reason for him using executive orders when he can ask Congress. Most other presidents used executive orders to circumvent opposition in Congress, but Trump wouldn't have to do that. It's clear that he has the GOP under control, even the two Russia hawks and never Trumpers McCain and Graham have voted for all of Trump's nominees. The GOP is committing quite a few unforced errors right now, seemingly oblivious of the fact that they have the trifecta. They didn't allow time for proper ethics screenings for Trump's nominees, instead of first agreeing how to repeal and replace the ACA, they re-labeled a budget resolution “repeal of Obama Care” even though according to Democratic Senator Paul it added $9.7 trillion to the budget deficit and repeals only the income half of Obama Care without tackling the regulations. If the GOP continues on this path of callousness, there is a good chance that they'll have to pay at the hands of the voters in two years. I don't understand why the GOP doesn't hash out now over the next two, three months what issues they want to tackle and how they want to do that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 07:05 AM
 
Maybe they all think they can do what they want with impunity. The Dems can't do anything about it and the voters apparently won't hold them to account for anything ever. Maybe they're right.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Maybe they all think they can do what they want with impunity. The Dems can't do anything about it and the voters apparently won't hold them to account for anything ever. Maybe they're right.
I think that's a foolish strategy if the GOP wants to convince the American people that they govern better — at the very least they are making it unnecessarily difficult for themselves.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
However, Trump isn't forced to use these powers, and if you are a constitutionalist, you'd push for Trump rolling some of this back independently of what Obama has or hasn't done.
Like supposed "Constitutional Professor" Obama?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Like supposed "Constitutional Professor" Obama?
Please don't deflect, it's Trump's turn now to do it better than Obama. You criticized Obama for overusing executive orders. Will you do the same for Trump? Do you think it was necessary to use executive order in the two cases I gave as examples?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 02:52 PM
 
It seems to me that the real question is what defines "overusing executive orders"? At the end of the day the POTUS is still the head of the executive branch. And thus has wide latitude not in what legislation is enforced but in how it is enforced. So all these vague criticisms about number and/or breadth of executive orders is really sort of meaningless. A valid criticism would look at a specific executive order and outline how it oversteps presidential authority in this regard.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 04:25 PM
 
Couple more concerning pipelines so I hear. How many is that now?

Is he set to personally profit from these pipelines? Will the GOP or their voters care?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 05:38 PM
 
He never divested himself from the pipelines, no.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
He never divested himself from the pipelines, no.
Yup, apparently Trump owns stock in the companies that have invested in the pipelines.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 09:50 PM
 
That strikes me as massively wrong. Can he be impeached for that?
I think I saw that there is already some kind of lawsuit being filed against him regarding his conflicts of interest.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
That strikes me as massively wrong. Can he be impeached for that?
I think I saw that there is already some kind of lawsuit being filed against him regarding his conflicts of interest.
Yes, but to my knowledge the lawsuit focusses on foreign conflicts of interests and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. The President is legally exempt from some of the rules that apply to his other cabinet members and other government officials — also because I reckon previous generations wouldn't have thought someone like Donald Trump to come into office. A lot of the law hasn't been tested in court yet, so I guess we will have to see.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 10:16 PM
 
It really doesn't matter. The GOP controlled Congress supports the pipeline and the oil and gas industry in general. So even if it was illegal the House would never impeach him over it and the Senate would surely never convict him.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It really doesn't matter. The GOP controlled Congress supports the pipeline and the oil and gas industry in general. So even if it was illegal the House would never impeach him over it and the Senate would surely never convict him.
You are right, but that doesn't mean the public and the press shouldn't press these issues when warranted. Plus, the majorities in Congress can change in two years, the GOP's majority in the Senate is very small.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2017, 11:40 PM
 
There is that. IMO this is a blatant disregard for political norms. The man is arrogant enough to think that he can get away with anything. But I'm not suggesting it should be ignored by any means. I'm just saying that one shouldn't hold one's breath expecting this particular Congress to do anything about it.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Please don't deflect, it's Trump's turn now to do it better than Obama. You criticized Obama for overusing executive orders. Will you do the same for Trump? Do you think it was necessary to use executive order in the two cases I gave as examples?
But this most learned of people, our Latin professor himself, (kek) says there was no problem, so Trump is fine too, I guess.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It seems to me that the real question is what defines "overusing executive orders"? At the end of the day the POTUS is still the head of the executive branch. And thus has wide latitude not in what legislation is enforced but in how it is enforced. So all these vague criticisms about number and/or breadth of executive orders is really sort of meaningless. A valid criticism would look at a specific executive order and outline how it oversteps presidential authority in this regard.

OAW
I have no delusions that the Repubs are "better", there's only precedent, and Obama screwed us all over with how far he was willing to take EOs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Are you kidding me ? It's peanuts.

Trump’s 2016 federal disclosure forms show he owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners. That’s down from between $500,000 and $1 million a year earlier.
Unless there are other, bigger direct investments, please stop wasting our time.

-t
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you kidding me ? It's peanuts.



Unless there are other, bigger direct investments, please stop wasting our time.

-t
Is the argument here that the value isn't high enough to be a conflict of interest?
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you kidding me ? It's peanuts.
Trump’s 2016 federal disclosure forms show he owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock ...
I'll accept your peanuts any time. Let me know how much of that you want to send, and I'll PM you an address.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you kidding me ? It's peanuts.

Unless there are other, bigger direct investments, please stop wasting our time.
A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. I gave examples where we could be talking about tens of millions (the Bank of China contributing to a $1 billion loan or the $2 million/year in rent by the Bank of China). Without Trump releasing more financial information — or someone obtaining that information in some other way, we have no way of knowing specifics. But we do know already something is there.

You are right, the sums here are small compared to Trump's alleged net worth, but I don't think this is relevant at all when it comes to ethics violations for conflicts of interests. Not pushing Trump to acknowledge his conflicts of interests with “smaller sums” makes it all the harder to push him for honesty and decency when we are talking about bigly money. These ethics laws and traditions (which are not legally mandated but socially expected, e. g. releasing tax returns) are in place to avoid the mere appearance of misconduct while in office, something that could damage the office. Trump's behavior leads to a degradation of civility, perhaps the next Presidential candidates won't release their tax returns either.

Do the simple experiment and put the shoe on the other foot: would you criticize Hillary Clinton if she were President and were in this situation (or had hired 6 former Goldmann Sachs bankers)? Please don't post a response, just think about it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,