The policy and politics of Trumpism

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
21,681
591
123
Jacksonville, Md USA
Anyone that thinks that 3 to 5 million illegals voted is delusional. If you think that is why Trump lost the popular vote you are doubly delusional. Its simply something made up in a narcissists mind because he cant handle the fact that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Sometimes I think he would rather have won the popular vote and lost the EC.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
39,229
2,797
173
50
East Point, Ga, USA
Anyone that thinks that 3 to 5 million illegals voted is delusional. If you think that is why Trump lost the popular vote you are doubly delusional. Its simply something made up in a narcissists mind because he cant handle the fact that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Sometimes I think he would rather have won the popular vote and lost the EC.
the really scary part is the white house is basically functioning in crisis mode right now, 5 days in. and there is no crisis to speak of except blows to cheeto benito's massive ego because so many people are partaking in alternate adulation of him.

i'm sure he will pivot to being presidential and in control soon though.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,382
231
73
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Anyone that thinks that 3 to 5 million illegals voted is delusional. If you think that is why Trump lost the popular vote you are doubly delusional. Its simply something made up in a narcissists mind because he cant handle the fact that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Sometimes I think he would rather have won the popular vote and lost the EC.
You may be correct. But, to be clear, my comments in this thread have nothing to do with Trump. I only want Americans determining America's leaders. Not a foreign government. Not illegal immigrants. In places where anyone can vote, it stands to reason that anyone will vote. How many illegals? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I have no idea. There shouldn't be any.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,985
572
128
the really scary part is the white house is basically functioning in crisis mode right now, 5 days in. and there is no crisis to speak of except blows to cheeto benito's massive ego because so many people are partaking in alternate adulation of him.

i'm sure he will pivot to being presidential and in control soon though.
Feel free to join the resistance in Trump's war against science.

@AltNatParkSer
@BadHombreNPS
@RogueNASA
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,985
572
128
You may be correct. But, to be clear, my comments in this thread have nothing to do with Trump. I only want Americans determining America's leaders. Not a foreign government. Not illegal immigrants. In places where anyone can vote, it stands to reason that anyone will vote. How many illegals? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I have no idea. There shouldn't be any.
We agree on the bolded part. However, I've seen no evidence that this is not happening.

As for the rest, I would ask that you (the royal you) provide evidence that illegal immigrants are actually voting in more than negligible amounts before barricading the right to vote behind documentation laws that Republican lawmakers have both openly and privately admitted are meant to suppress the voter turnout for their political opponents.

As stated by Todd Allbaugh, a staff aide to a Republican Senator, before quitting his job in disgust:
I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,688
5
48
Anyone that thinks that 3 to 5 million illegals voted is delusional. If you think that is why Trump lost the popular vote you are doubly delusional. Its simply something made up in a narcissists mind because he cant handle the fact that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Sometimes I think he would rather have won the popular vote and lost the EC.
I don't think there were either but I have no way to prove it. I still think voter identification is possible without creating a hardship for people. I would think it would be important to make it have as little impact as possible on anyone and be $0 cost to the individual. The value of a true and correct election is worth what it should cost. If we can take a census we can issue voter id cards. I would think a phone with a fingerprint scanner should be about all the tools needed to gather the data.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,688
5
48
We agree on the bolded part. However, I've seen no evidence that this is not happening.

As for the rest, I would ask that you (the royal you) provide evidence that illegal immigrants are actually voting in more than negligible amounts before barricading the right to vote behind documentation laws that Republican lawmakers have both openly and privately admitted are meant to suppress the voter turnout for their political opponents.

As stated by Todd Allbaugh, a staff aide to a Republican Senator, before quitting his job in disgust:
he should have been recording that, all of the republicans I know would vote against anyone trying to suppress a legal vote.
 

tattooguy21

All-American
Aug 14, 2012
3,284
9
48
Will be interesting to see where this goes, but I doubt Trump will be able to settle his way out of this one.

NYT: Foreign Payments to Trump Firms Violate Constitution, Suit Will Claim
I don't think he'll have to settle. I think it'll go to court and the following will be decided

1. It's not a conflict of interest. Why, because as president he can't have a conflict of interest. Not my rule, and I don't agree with the statement, but it is in fact the law.

2. This is their interpretation. His lawyers already stood up and said they don't interpret it that way.

In fact, last I checked, to bring suit his across must have "brought harm." Isn't that a basic legal tenant in a situation like this. What do they say....he made us want to spend our time investigating him.

I'm pretty sure he walks out of this unscathed.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
67,552
3,652
323
Huntsville, AL,USA
I don't think he'll have to settle. I think it'll go to court and the following will be decided

1. It's not a conflict of interest. Why, because as president he can't have a conflict of interest. Not my rule, and I don't agree with the statement, but it is in fact the law.

2. This is their interpretation. His lawyers already stood up and said they don't interpret it that way.

In fact, last I checked, to bring suit his across must have "brought harm." Isn't that a basic legal tenant in a situation like this. What do they say....he made us want to spend our time investigating him.

I'm pretty sure he walks out of this unscathed.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html
It's important to understand the difference between the conflict of interest statutes and the emoluments clause of the Constitution. This suit is not based on the conflict of interest statutes, which exempt the President. Here is the exact language: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

An "emolument" is basically defined as basically any financial benefit. The suit is based upon the fact that there are funds flowing from foreign governments to businesses owned by Trump. There was a long discussion on this before, but the only remedy for a violation of the clause by the POTUS is impeachment, which isn't likely with a Republican-controlled Congress. This would only happen if, as happened with Nixon, a sufficient number of Republican legislators were repulsed enough by his conduct to vote to impeach, and then to convict. I don't think this suit will go anywhere because, first, the court as presently constituted is evenly divided and would be unlikely to take up the question, even if it weren't, probably pointing out that there is a remedy in the Constitution. Even if it did render an opinion that he was in violation, then what? Once again, enforcement is the issue. As in Jackson's remark when the court found that Georgians had violated treaties with the Cherokees - "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Edit: I see the WaPo article explains a good bit of what I've just posted...
 
Last edited:

tattooguy21

All-American
Aug 14, 2012
3,284
9
48
It's important to understand the difference between the conflict of interest statutes and the emoluments clause of the Constitution. This suit is not based on the conflict of interest statutes, which exempt the President. Here is the exact language: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

An "emolument" is basically defined as basically any financial benefit. The suit is based upon the fact that there are funds flowing from foreign governments to businesses owned by Trump. There was a long discussion on this before, but the only remedy for a violation of the clause by the POTUS is impeachment, which isn't likely with a Republican-controlled Congress. This would only happen if, as happened with Nixon, a sufficient number of Republican legislators were repulsed enough by his conduct to vote to impeach, and then to convict. I don't think this suit will go anywhere because, first, the court as presently constituted is evenly divided and would be unlikely to take up the question, even if it weren't, probably pointing out that there is a remedy in the Constitution. Even if it did render an opinion that he was in violation, then what? Once again, enforcement is the issue. As in Jackson's remark when the court found that Georgians had violated treaties with the Cherokees - "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Edit: I see the WaPo article explains a good bit of what I've just posted...
Yeah, that's why I put it in there. Felt like it did a far more thorough and logical job of explaining vs my bullets. The emoliments definition gets me though....I wouldn't have viewed services rendered under there. But I can see how some could say, "they spent money at YOUR place, do you know whats up." But if all that money goes to the treasury dept, how does the president in turn profit? Doesn't or nullify the basis of the argument in that he doesn't profit?
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
17,541
14
48
47
Birmingham, AL
Yeah, that's why I put it in there. Felt like it did a far more thorough and logical job of explaining vs my bullets. The emoliments definition gets me though....I wouldn't have viewed services rendered under there. But I can see how some could say, "they spent money at YOUR place, do you know whats up." But if all that money goes to the treasury dept, how does the president in turn profit? Doesn't or nullify the basis of the argument in that he doesn't profit?
A government bribing a Trump business doesn't go to the US Treasury.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
13,771
1,790
178
Sylacauga,AL
It's important to understand the difference between the conflict of interest statutes and the emoluments clause of the Constitution. This suit is not based on the conflict of interest statutes, which exempt the President. Here is the exact language: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

An "emolument" is basically defined as basically any financial benefit. The suit is based upon the fact that there are funds flowing from foreign governments to businesses owned by Trump. There was a long discussion on this before, but the only remedy for a violation of the clause by the POTUS is impeachment, which isn't likely with a Republican-controlled Congress. This would only happen if, as happened with Nixon, a sufficient number of Republican legislators were repulsed enough by his conduct to vote to impeach, and then to convict. I don't think this suit will go anywhere because, first, the court as presently constituted is evenly divided and would be unlikely to take up the question, even if it weren't, probably pointing out that there is a remedy in the Constitution. Even if it did render an opinion that he was in violation, then what? Once again, enforcement is the issue. As in Jackson's remark when the court found that Georgians had violated treaties with the Cherokees - "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Edit: I see the WaPo article explains a good bit of what I've just posted...
I think Jackson exposed the weakness of the SC by stating that, and it has been repeatedly been true ever since.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Yeah, that's why I put it in there. Felt like it did a far more thorough and logical job of explaining vs my bullets. The emoliments definition gets me though....I wouldn't have viewed services rendered under there. But I can see how some could say, "they spent money at YOUR place, do you know whats up." But if all that money goes to the treasury dept, how does the president in turn profit? Doesn't or nullify the basis of the argument in that he doesn't profit?
There are other technical questions in my opinion. For example:

If a government official pays for a Trump hotel room out of pocket and is later reimbursed by his government for the expense, who has actually paid Trump's business? The foreign government or the individual?

If a Trump hotel is owned by a corporation (of which Trump is sole shareholder), who has actually received the payment? The corporation or Trump?

If a transaction is a common arms length service that a business provides to government and nongovernment people alike for a similar fee, is that equivalent to being in the employ of or holding office in a foreign government when the fee for service is provided by a foreign government?
 
Last edited:

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,985
572
128
So... Trump appears to be angry about voter fraud because a German "friend" of his saw Latinos vote?

The blue font is a lie.


NYT: Trump’s Voter Fraud Example? A Troubled Tale With Bernhard Langer

Mr. [Bernhard] Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote.

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from.

Mr. Langer, whom he described as a supporter, left feeling frustrated, according to a version of events later contradicted by a White House official.

The anecdote, the aides said, was greeted with silence, and Mr. Trump was prodded to change the subject by Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.

Just one problem: Mr. Langer, who lives in Boca Raton, Fla., is a German citizen with permanent residence status in the United States who is, by law, barred from voting, according to Mr. Langer’s daughter Christina. “He is a citizen of Germany,” she said, when reached on her father’s cellphone. “He is not a friend of President Trump’s, and I don’t know why he would talk about him.”
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,382
231
73
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
in case you're interested, i had edited my first response to you to add an article from frontline talking about those who can't get id
Ok, so I was able to look at the Frontline videos, and I'm still not buying that requiring ID is discriminatory. The excuse is that getting an ID (driver's license, passport, etc.) is inconvenient and expensive. It is neither IMO. If someone can't get an idea it's because that don't want to put forth any effort. Surely time can be found within the next four years to make a trip to the DMV. Or $100 can be scrapped together over the next four years for a passport that is good for 10 years. I'm just not buying that it is inconvenient, much less discriminatory.

We agree on the bolded part. However, I've seen no evidence that this is not happening.

As for the rest, I would ask that you (the royal you) provide evidence that illegal immigrants are actually voting in more than negligible amounts before barricading the right to vote behind documentation laws that Republican lawmakers have both openly and privately admitted are meant to suppress the voter turnout for their political opponents.
Can the royal you prove that illegals aren't voting? How would you know one way or the other? They are here by the millions and collect assorted benefits (healthcare, tuition breaks, etc.) already. There seems to be little to no barrier to voting in some states. So, why wouldn't one vote for a political party that promises all sorts of goodies for one's fellow illegals? The incentive is to vote illegally. I've certainly seen advocacy groups around here encourage this activity.

If you can show me where a citizen showed up at the polls and was denied the chance to vote, I'd condemn it. But, I don't see that happening. The fact is the DNC wants illegals to vote because the illegals will vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.