Eric Trump Billed Taxpayers $80K for Two-Day Business Trip

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2020, 06:28 PM)Dill Wrote: 46 years ago a Republican Senate told their president they would vote to remove him from office, once it was clear he sought to quash investigation into his abuse of power and fired his own investigators. No reason to believe they'd have done that had he lied about a BJ. 

If we are talking about party double standards based upon false equivalence,
then which was "worse" has everything to do with it.

You are dismissing the vast difference in the nature and degree of violation recorded in these impeachments 
by restricting your comparison to no more than Senate voting tallies.

That's what produces the false equivalence. 

The Democratic party is no mirror image of the Republican.
No Dem could remain in power doing what Trump does; s/he would lose voter and party backing.

*sighs
Believe what you want. Votes show they are no different when it comes to toeing the line for their own party members.
That is my point.

[Dill]

(03-11-2020, 07:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: *sighs
Believe what you want. Votes show they are no different when it comes to toeing the line for their own party members.
That is my point.

My answer acknowledged your point--and explained why "toeing the line" is incomparable when the violation is incomparable.

If a jury acquitted a politician who admitted he was guilty of resisting arrest that would hardly establish the same degree of "line toeing" as acquitting a politician who refused to admit guilt in rigging an election and used his power of office to keep evidence thereof out of court--even if the jury vote were the same in each instance.

Vote tallies don't make the crimes equivalent, nor do they establish equal willingness to look past criminality. Yet that is basically your argument. "Votes show they are no different" etc. That's not what votes show, if impeachment articles reveal a vast difference between lying about a private liaison and abusing presidential power and obstructing investigation into that abuse--especially a day after the perp is tagged for the most egregious obstruction in another national security case. Let me repeat that--a NATIONAL SECURITY case.

And there are myriad other reasons for believing that Democrats, as voters or in Congress, won't "toe the line" to protect a politician who abuses power of office or breaches ethical norms to the degree Trump has. But every reason now to believe that T-Partiers, as voters or in Congress, would toe the line to protect Trump.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2020, 08:44 PM)Dill Wrote: My answer acknowledged your point--and explained why "toeing the line" is incomparable when the violation is incomparable.

If a jury acquitted a politician who admitted he was guilty of resisting arrest that would hardly establish the same degree of "line toeing" as acquitting a politician who refused to admit guilt in rigging an election and used his power of office to keep evidence thereof out of court--even if the jury vote were the same in each instance.

Vote tallies don't make the crimes equivalent, nor do they establish equal willingness to look past criminality. Yet that is basically your argument. "Votes show they are no different" etc. That's not what votes show, if impeachment articles reveal a vast difference between lying about a private liaison and abusing presidential power and obstructing investigation into that abuse--especially a day after the perp is tagged for the most egregious obstruction in another national security case.  Let me repeat that--a NATIONAL SECURITY case.

And there are myriad other reasons for believing that Democrats, as voters or in Congress, won't "toe the line" to protect a politician who abuses power of office or breaches ethical norms to the degree Trump has. But every reason now to believe that T-Partiers, as voters or in Congress, would toe the line to protect Trump.

What was the outcome of the Trump impeachment trial? Just because you and the left believe he is "guilty" doesn't mean anything since he was acquitted, just like Clinton was, and it was because of their Respective Parties "toeing the line". The problem is there will never ever be an exact equivalent for comparison. It's a rare event to begin with, but one that that might start becoming a precedent going forward. Accusations is the norm in politics, everyone looks for that one advantage over the other. Keep tossing things until something sticks. It is unproductive and I'm tired of both sides playing that game, neither side will ever "win", they are smart and make sure they keep the balance going so they can maintain the "status quo". Just another 2, 4, or 6 years of nothing truly getting accomplished because we as voters are split on voting as well.

And no, how the parties voted makes a big difference in the 2 out comes. Repubs protected Trump and Dems protected Clinton during their respective trials, spin that anyway you want, the outcome remains the same.

Since you believe that the Dems don't "toe the line", then we have nothing further to discuss cause I can't dispute your opinion, even though I showed an example where they did both times and the Repubs did not toe the line which was your initial accusation.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree and wait for the next Dem POTUS impeachment trial in 2024.

[GMDino]

I do a "daily history" thing and saw this today:

Quote:1985 - Former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon announced that he planned to drop Secret Service protection and hire his own bodyguards in an effort to lower the deficit by $3 million.

He passed in 1994.

[Dill]

(03-12-2020, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What was the outcome of the Trump impeachment trial? Just because you and the left believe he is "guilty" doesn't mean anything since he was acquitted, just like Clinton was, and it was because of their Respective Parties "toeing the line". The problem is there will never ever be an exact equivalent for comparison. It's a rare event to begin with, but one that that might start becoming a precedent going forward. Accusations is the norm in politics, everyone looks for that one advantage over the other. Keep tossing things until something sticks. It is unproductive and I'm tired of both sides playing that game, neither side will ever "win", they are smart and make sure they keep the balance going so they can maintain the "status quo". Just another 2, 4, or 6 years of nothing truly getting accomplished because we as voters are split on voting as well.

And no, how the parties voted makes a big difference in the 2 out comes. Repubs protected Trump and Dems protected Clinton during their respective trials, spin that anyway you want, the outcome remains the same.

Since you believe that the Dems don't "toe the line", then we have nothing further to discuss cause I can't dispute your opinion, even though I showed an example where they did both times and the Repubs did not toe the line which was your initial accusation.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree and wait for the next Dem POTUS impeachment trial in 2024.

Thanks for the response, O-Mike. I'm going to disagree with a couple of points, but yours is still a reasonable, thoughtful response and I appreciate your taking the time to make it.

1. I am not saying Democrats never "toe the line" or would not under some circumstances. But I am saying they would not toe the line if a Dem president abused power and obstructed justice as Trump did. Also, they would never elect someone with Trump's negatives. I am saying that the Republican party of today is becoming a regime party which does toe the line for the leader, even to cover corruption. That's what makes vote tallies of Clinton and Trump impeachments incomparable. What was "protected" in each case is very different. In the Trump case especially it means that Congressional oversight and separation of powers have been compromised. That definitely was not the outcome of the Clinton impeachment.

2. Accusations may be "the norm," but they are not always baseless. In the case of Clinton's impeachment, a fishing expedition eventually happened upon a side issue, a private liaison--something that finally stuck on the wall. Trump's impeachment process began with a whistleblower whose suspicions were validated by the IG and confirmed by documentary evidence and other testimonials. Over a dozen witnesses corroborated the initial finding. And the crime was of the highest order--abuse of power in a matter of national security.

3. You say no one wins, but the same side won both impeachments. Holding to a very LOW legal threshold, they leveraged a fishing expedition into the impeachment of a Dem president for a private indiscretion (a stain on his record, even if he was eventually acquitted), and then holding to a high legal threshold which virtually eliminates impeachment as a possibility, they acquitted a Republican president for actual high crimes; that president now continues pursuing "Biden corruption" in the Ukraine through unofficial agents.

One can only think that Dems were just throwing stuff at the wall in this case if one holds that abuse of power--a "high crime" of office--and obstruction are no big deal. That seems to be the difference between us. Dems toed the line on an impeachment that should never have been, and Republicans toed the line on an impeachment that should have been, effectively covering their leader's corruption. That is how regime party's work.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-jr-s-mongolia-trip-to-kill-an-endangered-1843965283

At first it was said that taxpayers paid $17k for Don Jr to go to Mongolia to hunt an endangered sheep (checks notes... damn ok, yea that’s correct... he went to hunt an endangered sheep)

Some additional due diligence on the part of citizen groups found that it really cost us $77k. Don Jr, who in no way could be compensating for anything by hunting (checks notes again) a ***** sheep, also rubbed elbows with GOP donors on the trip and Mongolian business men close to the ruling party.

Apparently they helped him get clearance to hunt the sheep AFTER it was dead.

Meanwhile the Trumps are taking 12 times as many protected trips as the Obamas.

[GMDino]

(06-09-2020, 04:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-jr-s-mongolia-trip-to-kill-an-endangered-1843965283

At first it was said that taxpayers paid $17k for Don Jr to go to Mongolia to hunt an endangered sheep (checks notes... damn ok, yea that’s correct... he went to hunt an endangered sheep)

Some additional due diligence on the part of citizen groups found that it really cost us $77k. Don Jr, who in no way could be compensating for anything by hunting (checks notes again) a ***** sheep, also rubbed elbows with GOP donors on the trip and Mongolian business men close to the ruling party.

Apparently they helped him get clearance to hunt the sheep AFTER it was dead.

Meanwhile the Trumps are taking 12 times as many protected trips as the Obamas.

"bUT TrUMp DOnaTEs HiS SaLARy!"

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-09-2020, 04:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-jr-s-mongolia-trip-to-kill-an-endangered-1843965283

At first it was said that taxpayers paid $17k for Don Jr to go to Mongolia to hunt an endangered sheep (checks notes... damn ok, yea that’s correct... he went to hunt an endangered sheep)

Some additional due diligence on the part of citizen groups found that it really cost us $77k. Don Jr, who in no way could be compensating for anything by hunting (checks notes again) a ***** sheep, also rubbed elbows with GOP donors on the trip and Mongolian business men close to the ruling party.

Apparently they helped him get clearance to hunt the sheep AFTER it was dead.

Meanwhile the Trumps are taking 12 times as many protected trips as the Obamas.

Doesn't matter if they are flying to Timbuktu and riding naked on water buffalo's. 

POTUS family members are allowed SS protection at all times. And the Trump family is bigger than the Obama family and only 1 is a minor. The rest are adults and have lives that take them places. Even if their dad wasn't the POTUS they would still have gone on a trip like this yes/no?

Why don't you complain about how much we spend protecting Baron when he went to school everyday? Or going to the mall to hang out or an amusement park or concert? Those are technically trips that spend taxpayer money on SS protection as well right? 

But I do get it. You're trying to turn it into an ethical argument and that is open to individual interpretation. What is not open is that they are entitled to SS protection where ever they are 24-7. The POTUS's family is a target no matter what and that's why they are entitled to that protection. 

Wouldn't you rather be reading about some trip they made vs how they were kidnapped and the country is being held hostage because they were not protected? That would be a political nightmare. 

[GMDino]

(06-11-2020, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Doesn't matter if they are flying to Timbuktu and riding naked on water buffalo's. 

POTUS family members are allowed SS protection at all times. And the Trump family is bigger than the Obama family and only 1 is a minor. The rest are adults and have lives that take them places. Even if their dad wasn't the POTUS they would still have gone on a trip like this yes/no?

Why don't you complain about how much we spend protecting Baron when he went to school everyday? Or going to the mall to hang out or an amusement park or concert? Those are technically trips that spend taxpayer money on SS protection as well right? 

But I do get it. You're trying to turn it into an ethical argument and that is open to individual interpretation. What is not open is that they are entitled to SS protection where ever they are 24-7. The POTUS's family is a target no matter what and that's why they are entitled to that protection. 

Wouldn't you rather be reading about some trip they made vs how they were kidnapped and the country is being held hostage because they were not protected? That would be a political nightmare. 

They can refuse it if they want.  After all "they would still have gone on a trip like this" if their dad wasn't grifting POTUS.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#:~:text=The%20law%20states%20that%20individuals,disallows%20these%20excepted%20offices%20from

But I trust no member of the Trump family from Don down has ever passed up something for free that makes them feel like they are rich or the chance to rip off some money from someone or something.

"SS" 

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Doesn't matter if they are flying to Timbuktu and riding naked on water buffalo's. 

POTUS family members are allowed SS protection at all times. And the Trump family is bigger than the Obama family and only 1 is a minor. The rest are adults and have lives that take them places. Even if their dad wasn't the POTUS they would still have gone on a trip like this yes/no?

Why don't you complain about how much we spend protecting Baron when he went to school everyday? Or going to the mall to hang out or an amusement park or concert? Those are technically trips that spend taxpayer money on SS protection as well right? 

But I do get it. You're trying to turn it into an ethical argument and that is open to individual interpretation. What is not open is that they are entitled to SS protection where ever they are 24-7. The POTUS's family is a target no matter what and that's why they are entitled to that protection. 

Wouldn't you rather be reading about some trip they made vs how they were kidnapped and the country is being held hostage because they were not protected? That would be a political nightmare. 

This really isn't any different from your past comments and mine won't be either.

Abuse isn't justified because they're entitled to use the thing they're abusing. Making use of a tax payer funded service to campaign and live a lavish lifestyle is something every person should reject from our government. Ignoring the legal issue of Don Jr promoting the family business and campaigning on the tax payer dime, do you think the system was built to support a lavish lifestyle? Why should the taxpayers fund so many personal trips? 

And attempting to compare a child going to school to an adult using the secret service to go to Asia to hunt sheep and campaign is, and I'm sorry for being blunt, ***** stupid. You know it's ***** stupid. I know it's ***** stupid. Everyone reading this knows it's ***** stupid. 

I understand that Trump's presidency is in the gutters and desperate conservatives are trying to find anything to defend about the level of corruption and incompetence on display, but you're not making a good argument here.