From the sidebar accompanying the first article....
"The authors contend that, in order to understand the moral compass by which animals live, we must first expand our definition of morality to include moral behavior unique to each species."
So, if we change the definition of 'moral'.........
"mor·al ˈmôrəl/Submit adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. "the moral dimensions of medical intervention" synonyms: virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, principled, honorable, honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, clean-living, law-abiding "a moral man" 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" noun 1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has" synonyms: lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, teaching "the moral of the story" 2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. "the corruption of public morals" synonyms: moral code, code of ethics, (moral) values, principles, standards, (sense of) morality, scruples "he has no morals" "
The next article is a philosophical argument.....The same behavior could be explained by what I described in my post....."Could you cite some references to animals making choices that are 'moral', versus instinctive, protective or in best interest of their well-being?"
The third article.....The information is a rehash from the first article you cited.
And the fourth article is written by the same author that wrote the second article about the philosophical argument.
Sorry, dobey, your links were not very useful in the context of the definition of morality as used in our current exchange of ideas.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Sorry, dobey, your links were not very useful in the context of the definition of morality as used in our current exchange of ideas.
I appreciate your effort though.
As I said, "morality" is not an objective thing, because it is a sliding scale. Animals do exhibit the same behavior which we would call moral in humans.
Believe what you want, but what you think is necessarily good or bad is not the same as the rest of the world, and so it still stands there is no objective definition to compare oneself against to quantify morality.
Sorry that your view of reality is so twisted as to think that the world is a binary concept of good and bad. The real world is not so simple.
So in closing... Trump is in FULL COMPLIANCE with the GSA as it applies to his renovation/restoration and ownership of the lease for the Old Post Office.
Thanks for participating in a discussion that has now come back full circle.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So in closing... Trump is in FULL COMPLIANCE with the GSA as it applies to his renovation/restoration and ownership of the lease for the Old Post Office.
Thanks for participating in a discussion that has now come back full circle.
The person Trump appointed to the GSA has said this yes. I never said that wasn't the case.
I simply said it is a contentious statement, and the evidence suggests he is not.
The person Trump appointed to the GSA has said this yes. I never said that wasn't the case.
I simply said it is a contentious statement, and the evidence suggests he is not.
Evidence, or speculation? Your speculation. Anyway... good, moving on.
Have you ever been there? It's pretty cool. I'm glad he has the contract on it. It used to cost the taxpayer over a million dollars a year just to maintain it. Now, the government MAKES money on it. Hooray for capitalism.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Evidence, or speculation? Your speculation. Anyway... good, moving on.
Have you ever been there? It's pretty cool. I'm glad he has the contract on it. It used to cost the taxpayer over a million dollars a year just to maintain it. Now, the government MAKES money on it. Hooray for capitalism.
Dobey was hoping they turn it into a starbucks.. So they have a place to have cry in's
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Evidence, or speculation? Your speculation. Anyway... good, moving on.
1) Lease states no elected official should receive financial benefit from said lease. 2) Trump is an elected official 3) Trump is CEO of Trump Organization LLC. Which is an LLC. 4) Therefore Trump is an elected official who would receive direct financial benefit from his company leasing the property, thus placing him in violation of said lease agreement.
5) In the grand scheme of things this specific lease issue probably doesn't matter, because he likely won't be serving as an elected official too much longer. The possibility of corruption by him having appointed the official who suddenly claims that Trump would not be in violation of the lease agreement, will be an interesting addition to any investigations into his corruption, though.
1) Lease states no elected official should receive financial benefit from said lease. 2) Trump is an elected official 3) Trump is CEO of Trump Organization LLC. Which is an LLC. 4) Therefore Trump is an elected official who would receive direct financial benefit from his company leasing the property, thus placing him in violation of said lease agreement.
5) In the grand scheme of things this specific lease issue probably doesn't matter, because he likely won't be serving as an elected official too much longer. The possibility of corruption by him having appointed the official who suddenly claims that Trump would not be in violation of the lease agreement, will be an interesting addition to any investigations into his corruption, though.
Originally posted by dobey: As I said, "morality" is not an objective thing, because it is a sliding scale. Animals do exhibit the same behavior which we would call moral in humans.
Prejudice is not an objective thing. It is a sliding scale. Animals do exhibit the same behavior which we would call moral in humans.
Oh 'ye of great fun. Next beer is on me, and I will drink it, '
1) Lease states no elected official should receive financial benefit from said lease. 2) Trump is an elected official 3) Trump is CEO of Trump Organization LLC. Which is an LLC. 4) Therefore Trump is an elected official who would receive direct financial benefit from his company leasing the property, thus placing him in violation of said lease agreement. 5) In the grand scheme of things this specific lease issue probably doesn't matter, because he likely won't be serving as an elected official too much longer. The possibility of corruption by him having appointed the official who suddenly claims that Trump would not be in violation of the lease agreement, will be an interesting addition to any investigations into his corruption, though.
1) If you are privy to such information, then why are you not presenting this yourself to someone other than a car forum that really does not like you? 2) President Trump is YOUR elected official. 3) See item #1. 4) See item #3. 5) Again with the Nostradamus predictions? Have you ever played poker? You give your hand away with every breath. 6) Enjoy your day. 7) Thanks for the neg and hour ago. Surprises, let's me know you care!
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 04-02-2017).]
1) Lease states no elected official should receive financial benefit from said lease. 2) Trump is an elected official 3) Trump is CEO of Trump Organization LLC. Which is an LLC. 4) Therefore Trump is an elected official who would receive direct financial benefit from his company leasing the property, thus placing him in violation of said lease agreement.
5) In the grand scheme of things this specific lease issue probably doesn't matter, because he likely won't be serving as an elected official too much longer. The possibility of corruption by him having appointed the official who suddenly claims that Trump would not be in violation of the lease agreement, will be an interesting addition to any investigations into his corruption, though.
GSA said it was ok because Trump was the lease holder BEFORE he ran for president. He signed a lease like almost 4 years ago. I even remember visiting it when they had just started the renovations.
By the way, thought it was funny when the inauguration procession passed by the Trump hotel. I thought it was kind of cool. I know it made a lot of Democrats super angry... but I admit to getting a kick out of it.
1) If you are privy to such information, then why are you not presenting this yourself to someone other than a car forum that really does not like you? 2) President Trump is YOUR elected official. 3) See item #1. 4) See item #3. 5) Again with the Nostradamus predictions? Have you ever played poker? You give your hand away with every breath. 6) Enjoy your day. 7) Thanks for the neg and hour ago. Surprises, let's me know you care!
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: GSA said it was ok because Trump was the lease holder BEFORE he ran for president. He signed a lease like almost 4 years ago. I even remember visiting it when they had just started the renovations.
Oh. So it's totally cool if he raped and pillaged BEFORE he was President, and he can still keep making money off of that, despite the lease agreement he signed clearly stating otherwise, and it totally being against the law.
Oh. So it's totally cool if he raped and pillaged BEFORE he was President, and he can still keep making money off of that, despite the lease agreement he signed clearly stating otherwise, and it totally being against the law.
Gotcha.
OOOOOOHKAY.... let's be REALLY clear about one thing. What I'm about to tell you are FACTS. You CANNOT disagree with them, because they are actually FACTS.
Before Trump got the lease on the Old Post Office, it was costing the Federal government more than 2 million dollars a year in annual maintenance costs. After Trump signed the lease, the Federal government now MAKES $3,000,000 in rent.
So... they went from a deficit of almost 2.5 million a year, to a PROFIT of 3 million a year. And... that $250,000 a month rent that Trump pays, will go up every year according to the CPI.
Ok, now that we got FACTS out of the way, here are some of my opinions:
I think it's great that Trump leased the building. He totally renovated it (with his own money). It's on the list of historic places and actually has a designated National Park inside that belongs to the NPS. You can STILL go into the building, and take the elevator ride up to the bell tower and see all the old components of the Old Post Office (all of which he restored as well). It's actually closed right now because Trump is paying for a new elevator to the bell tower.
Anyway... Trump signed all this before he ran for office. The GSA said there's no problem because it was negotiated before. Since he's given everything over in a trust to his son, there's essentially no ties. Trump makes a lot of money, the least of which comes from the Old Post Office. When you got from a 2.5 million deficit to a 3 million profit (for the Federal government), I think that's a win for everyone.
If you could cool your jets for just a minute, you'd realize this was a good thing, and there's literally NOTHING you should be angry about as it pertains to the Old Post Office.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: OOOOOOHKAY.... let's be REALLY clear about one thing. What I'm about to tell you are FACTS. You CANNOT disagree with them, because they are actually FACTS.
Before Trump got the lease on the Old Post Office, it was costing the Federal government more than 2 million dollars a year in annual maintenance costs. After Trump signed the lease, the Federal government now MAKES $3,000,000 in rent.
So... they went from a deficit of almost 2.5 million a year, to a PROFIT of 3 million a year. And... that $250,000 a month rent that Trump pays, will go up every year according to the CPI.
Ok, now that we got FACTS out of the way, here are some of my opinions:
I think it's great that Trump leased the building. He totally renovated it (with his own money). It's on the list of historic places and actually has a designated National Park inside that belongs to the NPS. You can STILL go into the building, and take the elevator ride up to the bell tower and see all the old components of the Old Post Office (all of which he restored as well). It's actually closed right now because Trump is paying for a new elevator to the bell tower.
Anyway... Trump signed all this before he ran for office. The GSA said there's no problem because it was negotiated before. Since he's given everything over in a trust to his son, there's essentially no ties. Trump makes a lot of money, the least of which comes from the Old Post Office. When you got from a 2.5 million deficit to a 3 million profit (for the Federal government), I think that's a win for everyone.
If you could cool your jets for just a minute, you'd realize this was a good thing, and there's literally NOTHING you should be angry about as it pertains to the Old Post Office.
No wonder the lib's are mad. Now it won't be in the red costing taxpayers money, they can't ask for more money for the next budget to pillage and waste.. Also how dare he help fix our debt. By making It make money for the Fed. instead of costing Them.
[This message has been edited by Keel (edited 04-04-2017).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: OOOOOOHKAY.... let's be REALLY clear about one thing. What I'm about to tell you are FACTS. You CANNOT disagree with them, because they are actually FACTS.
Before Trump got the lease on the Old Post Office, it was costing the Federal government more than 2 million dollars a year in annual maintenance costs. After Trump signed the lease, the Federal government now MAKES $3,000,000 in rent.
So... they went from a deficit of almost 2.5 million a year, to a PROFIT of 3 million a year. And... that $250,000 a month rent that Trump pays, will go up every year according to the CPI.
Ok, now that we got FACTS out of the way, here are some of my opinions:
I think it's great that Trump leased the building. He totally renovated it (with his own money). It's on the list of historic places and actually has a designated National Park inside that belongs to the NPS. You can STILL go into the building, and take the elevator ride up to the bell tower and see all the old components of the Old Post Office (all of which he restored as well). It's actually closed right now because Trump is paying for a new elevator to the bell tower.
Anyway... Trump signed all this before he ran for office. The GSA said there's no problem because it was negotiated before. Since he's given everything over in a trust to his son, there's essentially no ties. Trump makes a lot of money, the least of which comes from the Old Post Office. When you got from a 2.5 million deficit to a 3 million profit (for the Federal government), I think that's a win for everyone.
If you could cool your jets for just a minute, you'd realize this was a good thing, and there's literally NOTHING you should be angry about as it pertains to the Old Post Office.
Facts and math, you'll overload his brain.. meltdown rant in 3-2-1
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: OOOOOOHKAY.... let's be REALLY clear about one thing. What I'm about to tell you are FACTS. You CANNOT disagree with them, because they are actually FACTS.
Before Trump got the lease on the Old Post Office, it was costing the Federal government more than 2 million dollars a year in annual maintenance costs. After Trump signed the lease, the Federal government now MAKES $3,000,000 in rent.
So... they went from a deficit of almost 2.5 million a year, to a PROFIT of 3 million a year. And... that $250,000 a month rent that Trump pays, will go up every year according to the CPI.
Ohhhhhhhhkay. So now that we got the facts out of the way, which are completely irrelevant to the problem, let's talk about the actual facts in question here:
The point of contention isn't how much the GSA makes from leasing the building. It is an irrelevant number to what is in question. The part in question is that the lease states that no elected official may profit from the lease of the building. Trump is now an elected official. Nobody is saying Trump wasn't in compliance before being elected. They're saying Trump is no longer in compliance, now being an elected official, thus violating the terms of the lease agreement.
If you would "cool your jets" for a minute, you might be able to understand what is and is not relevant to the point of contention.
Ohhhhhhhhkay. So now that we got the facts out of the way, which are completely irrelevant to the problem, let's talk about the actual facts in question here:
The point of contention isn't how much the GSA makes from leasing the building. It is an irrelevant number to what is in question. The part in question is that the lease states that no elected official may profit from the lease of the building. Trump is now an elected official. Nobody is saying Trump wasn't in compliance before being elected. They're saying Trump is no longer in compliance, now being an elected official, thus violating the terms of the lease agreement.
If you would "cool your jets" for a minute, you might be able to understand what is and is not relevant to the point of contention.
You or anyone else have proof he is profiting from it.. From the reports, 1st it's costing the company that bares his name that he doesn't own . 3 million in rent then the reno.. and now a new elevator .. So, where is this proof of any profit.. and as seen as the company that leased it, is in trust to trumps kid.. your barking at your mirror.. You make a shittie teacher 3dog
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 04-04-2017).]
Originally posted by E.Furgal: You or anyone else have proof he is profiting from it.. From the reports, 1st it's costing the company that bares his name that he doesn't own . 3 million in rent then the reno.. and now a new elevator .. So, where is this proof of any profit.. and as seen as the company that leased it, is in trust to trumps kid.. your barking at your mirror.. You make a shittie teacher 3dog
You really are quite something.
First, prove he is not still the CEO of Trump Organization, which again, is structured as an LLC. He is still listed as CEO, and still receiving profit from business doings. Oh right, for some reason he won't prove that he's not by showing his tax returns. Rather, all of his business interests seem to be a complicated web of LLCs.
There is absolutely no proof that he does not receive profit from the organization, and he continues to refuse to provide any proof.
And again, since you are apparently incapable of understanding the most basic concepts of the English language, like the definitions of the words "proof" versus "evidence," I never claimed I have proof. I stated there is copious evidence. Sorry, I can't take pathological liars for their word, like you do.
"Oh, there is a straw! Hold on, I got it for you."
You really cannot make up this level of derangement. I am not attacking you dobey. Only penjoying the train wreck. I just will not be mad at you. It is much more enjoyable to if you just let it happen.
First, prove he is not still the CEO of Trump Organization, which again, is structured as an LLC. He is still listed as CEO, and still receiving profit from business doings. Oh right, for some reason he won't prove that he's not by showing his tax returns. Rather, all of his business interests seem to be a complicated web of LLCs.
There is absolutely no proof that he does not receive profit from the organization, and he continues to refuse to provide any proof.
And again, since you are apparently incapable of understanding the most basic concepts of the English language, like the definitions of the words "proof" versus "evidence," I never claimed I have proof. I stated there is copious evidence. Sorry, I can't take pathological liars for their word, like you do.
babaahahahahaha.. Now try to answer the question.. oh that is right YOU CAN'T.. your just full of **** .
Ohhhhhhhhkay. So now that we got the facts out of the way, which are completely irrelevant to the problem, let's talk about the actual facts in question here:
The point of contention isn't how much the GSA makes from leasing the building. It is an irrelevant number to what is in question. The part in question is that the lease states that no elected official may profit from the lease of the building. Trump is now an elected official. Nobody is saying Trump wasn't in compliance before being elected. They're saying Trump is no longer in compliance, now being an elected official, thus violating the terms of the lease agreement.
If you would "cool your jets" for a minute, you might be able to understand what is and is not relevant to the point of contention.
Let's cut the song and dance. I'm very aware here that you essentially threw out some nonsense "raped and pillaged" and now that you realize you've just thrown the argument, you're trying to pretend like that wasn't what you were saying from the beginning.
On your last point you're trying to make. Trump's family WILL profit from the 60-year hotel lease. Yes... they will. Trump himself is no longer in charge of the business. He had been planning on transferring the business to his kids (Trump is old, remember), but this just expedited it. The money goes to a trust, which is owned by the two sons... no longer Trump. Do we need to go further?
Can Eric Trump buy his dad a new Ferrari with the money made from the subletting of the Old Post Office lots? Yes... yes he can.
GSA has given the go-ahead. I'm sorry if that makes you angry.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Let's cut the song and dance. I'm very aware here that you essentially threw out some nonsense "raped and pillaged" and now that you realize you've just thrown the argument, you're trying to pretend like that wasn't what you were saying from the beginning.
On your last point you're trying to make. Trump's family WILL profit from the 60-year hotel lease. Yes... they will. Trump himself is no longer in charge of the business. He had been planning on transferring the business to his kids (Trump is old, remember), but this just expedited it. The money goes to a trust, which is owned by the two sons... no longer Trump. Do we need to go further?
Can Eric Trump buy his dad a new Ferrari with the money made from the subletting of the Old Post Office lots? Yes... yes he can.
GSA has given the go-ahead. I'm sorry if that makes you angry.
None of it matters a damn anyway. President Trump, Vice President Pence and members of Congress are specifically *exempt* under federal law from any of the "conflicts of interest" that has dopey's pink #Resist panties in a wad.
All of it is about simply *another* leftist wet dream of some way...ANY way, to try to overturn the lawful election.
It's going exactly NOWHERE just like all the other "gotcha" feverish wet dream fantasies they've had so far.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-04-2017).]
None of it matters a damn anyway. President Trump, Vice President Pence and members of Congress are specifically *exempt* under federal law from any of the "conflicts of interest" that has dopey's pink #Resist panties in wad.
All of it is about simply *another* leftist wet dream of some way...ANY way, to try to overturn the lawful election.
Hahah!!! Yes, let's impeach Trump and force him to resign because of the Old Post Office... hahaha...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Trump himself is no longer in charge of the business. He had been planning on transferring the business to his kids (Trump is old, remember), but this just expedited it. The money goes to a trust, which is owned by the two sons... no longer Trump. Do we need to go further?
Yes. You need to go further. Someone needs to provide actual proof of this. You cannot.
DJT is still the head of the Trump Organization. Until there is PROOF presented showing otherwise, there is no way you can claim he is not involved in the business. He is still receiving financial reporting on the business. He is still directing the business. He is still directly profiting from the business. If you don't think so, then I challenge you to provide at least some evidence showing otherwise. I have seen absolutely no evidence to support your position, and you continually refuse to provide any, just as DJT himself refuses to prove that he is actually doing what he said he would do, with regards to his business interests.
I have linked to multiple articles showing there is evidence that Trump is still acting in the interest of his businesses. Maybe you want to ignore the evidence because you think anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "biased leftist media," but if you can't have a discussion about it like an adult and expect that not everyone is going to take your and your god emperor's word for it, then perhaps you shouldn't be making threads about it.
You stated what you believe. I stated what the evidence suggests. You seem to prefer your blind faith to the evidence. So be it. You can't handle facts which disagree with your point of view, so instead of presenting any evidence in rebuttal, you simply resort to the mindless name calling and condescension as somehow claiming you are the victor of an argument. If you can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion, then perhaps you should just stop posting.
Yes. You need to go further. Someone needs to provide actual proof of this. You cannot.
DJT is still the head of the Trump Organization. Until there is PROOF presented showing otherwise, there is no way you can claim he is not involved in the business. He is still receiving financial reporting on the business. He is still directing the business. He is still directly profiting from the business. If you don't think so, then I challenge you to provide at least some evidence showing otherwise. I have seen absolutely no evidence to support your position, and you continually refuse to provide any, just as DJT himself refuses to prove that he is actually doing what he said he would do, with regards to his business interests.
I have linked to multiple articles showing there is evidence that Trump is still acting in the interest of his businesses. Maybe you want to ignore the evidence because you think anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "biased leftist media," but if you can't have a discussion about it like an adult and expect that not everyone is going to take your and your god emperor's word for it, then perhaps you shouldn't be making threads about it.
You stated what you believe. I stated what the evidence suggests. You seem to prefer your blind faith to the evidence. So be it. You can't handle facts which disagree with your point of view, so instead of presenting any evidence in rebuttal, you simply resort to the mindless name calling and condescension as somehow claiming you are the victor of an argument. If you can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion, then perhaps you should just stop posting.
Yes. You need to go further. Someone needs to provide actual proof of this. You cannot.
DJT is still the head of the Trump Organization. Until there is PROOF presented showing otherwise, there is no way you can claim he is not involved in the business. He is still receiving financial reporting on the business. He is still directing the business. He is still directly profiting from the business. If you don't think so, then I challenge you to provide at least some evidence showing otherwise. I have seen absolutely no evidence to support your position, and you continually refuse to provide any, just as DJT himself refuses to prove that he is actually doing what he said he would do, with regards to his business interests.
I have linked to multiple articles showing there is evidence that Trump is still acting in the interest of his businesses. Maybe you want to ignore the evidence because you think anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "biased leftist media," but if you can't have a discussion about it like an adult and expect that not everyone is going to take your and your god emperor's word for it, then perhaps you shouldn't be making threads about it.
You stated what you believe. I stated what the evidence suggests. You seem to prefer your blind faith to the evidence. So be it. You can't handle facts which disagree with your point of view, so instead of presenting any evidence in rebuttal, you simply resort to the mindless name calling and condescension as somehow claiming you are the victor of an argument. If you can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion, then perhaps you should just stop posting.
I'm honestly not even sure what any of this is even saying. I mean, I have two masters degrees, and still I'm not really sure what's going on here. Best I can figure is that you're wrong, and apparently very angry about it.
Yes. You need to go further. Someone needs to provide actual proof of this. You cannot. ...
You have only provided us with links to extreme bias. Once again, if you have information about your President being a criminal, then you would be America's savior, and would be hailed as a hero. So, what it is? Hero or loony?
There is nothing in any federal law or ethics provisions that preclude or prevent any govt employee or politician from directly or indirectly profiting from their blind trust investments. At most, the US AG can only bring a civil (not criminal) suit against any office holder suspected of violating the aspects of a qualified blind trust.
Originally posted by maryjane: There is nothing in any federal law or ethics provisions that preclude or prevent any govt employee or politician from directly or indirectly profiting from their blind trust investments. At most, the US AG can only bring a civil (not criminal) suit against any office holder suspected of violating the aspects of a qualified blind trust.
The thread isn't about federal law. It's about a specific lease agreement, which the following provision:
"No member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the Government of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed as extending to any Person who may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity, if this Lease is for the general benefit of such corporation or other entity."
Trump is an elected official of the Government of the United States, and Trump Organization LLC is not a publicly held entity. In my reading of this provision, and given what evidence is publicly visible, it would seem to me that Trump remains in violation of the lease agreement.
We can sit here and argue about it all day and night, and clearly nobody involved is going to be convinced one way or the other, on a car forum. However, that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks and veer off topic with BS excuses about "the lease was signed before the election" or "well now there is some theoretical profit that the GSA is making" instead of either discussing the topic, or simply agreeing to disagree. But civil discourse is lost on this forum now, thanks to the vocal minority who have been ruining it over the past several years.
The thread isn't about federal law. It's about a specific lease agreement, which the following provision: .....
It seems I am guilty of what we used to call "speaking beyond my learnin". I admit, I have not read much of the thread at all, or even the opening post, nor have I kept up with the subject at hand in the news.
The thread isn't about federal law. It's about a specific lease agreement, which the following provision:
"No member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the Government of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed as extending to any Person who may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity, if this Lease is for the general benefit of such corporation or other entity."
Trump is an elected official of the Government of the United States, and Trump Organization LLC is not a publicly held entity. In my reading of this provision, and given what evidence is publicly visible, it would seem to me that Trump remains in violation of the lease agreement.
We can sit here and argue about it all day and night, and clearly nobody involved is going to be convinced one way or the other, on a car forum. However, that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks and veer off topic with BS excuses about "the lease was signed before the election" or "well now there is some theoretical profit that the GSA is making" instead of either discussing the topic, or simply agreeing to disagree. But civil discourse is lost on this forum now, thanks to the vocal minority who have been ruining it over the past several years.
AND AS SEEN AS TRUMP HIMSELF DOESN'T OWN THE COMPANY ANYMORE YOUR BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE.. Seems that FACT doesn't compute in your small brain.. You only se the name trump and relate straight to MR Donald Trump himself.. And that is not the case.. but it is fun watching you show how little you know and understand how business works.. 3dog..
We can sit here and argue about it all day and night, and clearly nobody involved is going to be convinced one way or the other, on a car forum. However, that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks and veer off topic with BS excuses about "the lease was signed before the election" or "well now there is some theoretical profit that the GSA is making" instead of either discussing the topic, or simply agreeing to disagree. But civil discourse is lost on this forum now, thanks to the vocal minority who have been ruining it over the past several years.
There's nothing to go back and forth with... you are ACTUALLY wrong. These are facts we're talking about.
Trump no longer owns the company. End of story...
Nothing you are saying regarding this has any bearing on it.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There's nothing to go back and forth with... you are ACTUALLY wrong. These are facts we're talking about.
Trump no longer owns the company. End of story...
Nothing you are saying regarding this has any bearing on it.
There is absolutely no proof of this that has been presented to the public.
Show the tax returns, since you apparently have them, otherwise you would have no proof of your statement. Where is the PROOF? The evidence says you are wrong, and making a claim out of blind faith. All evidence presented so far, which has been made visible somehow to the public, suggests that DJT is still "CEO" of The Trump Organization, which is an LLC.
I seriously suggest you go learn how the LLC business structure works. It is a privately held business, with flow-through taxation. Which means, unless DJT has actually distanced himself from the businesses (so why is he receiving financial reports on the businesses then, and why are his family members being given positions in government?), he is almost certainly still involved in the business activities of The Trump Organization, and all related businesses.
I am still waiting for you to post some links to even a remote shred of evidence which supports your claims. You have not, and will not, do so. All you can do is declare me wrong, and proselytize your blind faith support of DJT on here.
'
Surprises, let's me know you care!
