No surprise: Trump will host the G7 at his own resort.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2019, 10:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that Trump's appearance of conflict of interest is to be criticized. But in this case does he get any credit for hosting it at cost (as Sunset suggests)? Seems sorta like a bunch of folks planning a party and wondering "Where can we rent" and one of them states "We can do it at my house for free and save money". 

There's a lot in this thread I find a bit astonishing, this is one of them. We actually should give him credit? Credit?

This would mean to adopt the most Trumpfriendly picture imaginable (he saves his poor buddies that want to party and do not know where) and treat it as the undisputable truth of the matter. First, one needs to believe him when he says "at cost", and there is zero rational reason to believe anything Trump says. That is not a biased statement. There simply isn't.

Also, "at cost" seems a fishy assumption to begin with, even if that were true (and not just said because otherwise, it would be breaking the law). Even "at cost", he gets a property rented out that usually is not, especially at the time. Also, detour profitability is probably the biggest factor in deals like this one.

Credit to Trump for blatantly promoting his own property. Pshaw.

[BmorePat87]

(10-18-2019, 11:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: All seriousness aside even "at cost" DJT will be bailing out a (another) failing business of his with quick cash.

'Cause I get the feeling that the his admin WILL pay this bill while they stiff all the rally cities.

How bad does @realdonaldtrump’s Doral need this business? Look what’s happened there during his presidency. In ONE YEAR, from ‘16-‘17:
—revenue fell 13.8%
—Net operating income fell 62% pic.twitter.com/RTr9OST3wd

— David Fahrenthold (@Fahrenthold) October 17, 2019

(10-18-2019, 12:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: There's a lot in this thread I find a bit astonishing, this is one of them. We actually should give him credit? Credit?

This would mean to adopt the most Trumpfriendly picture imaginable (he saves his poor buddies that want to party and do not know where) and treat it as the undisputable truth of the matter. First, one needs to believe him when he says "at cost", and there is zero rational reason to believe anything Trump says. That is not a biased statement. There simply isn't.

Also, "at cost" seems a fishy assumption to begin with, even if that were true (and not just said because otherwise, it would be breaking the law). Even "at cost", he gets a property rented out that usually is not, especially at the time. Also, detour profitability is probably the biggest factor in deals like this one.

Credit to Trump for blatantly promoting his own property. Pshaw.

Doral’s operating income is down 69% since 2014 and the month when the summit will be held is one of their slowest, with only 40% of the resort booked at that time.

Great way to boost the image of a failing business during a slow period. There’s also only 2 presidential suites, so there’s the question of what upgrades need to be made and will any taxpayer dollars go towards it.

But we’re to believe Mick when he says “Doral was far and away the best physical facility for this meeting” even when he follows it up by saying that the public is “absolutely not” going to get to see any information on the vetting process lol.

Trust Trump

[GMDino]

(10-18-2019, 12:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: There's a lot in this thread I find a bit astonishing, this is one of them. We actually should give him credit? Credit?

This would mean to adopt the most Trumpfriendly picture imaginable (he saves his poor buddies that want to party and do not know where) and treat it as the undisputable truth of the matter. First, one needs to believe him when he says "at cost", and there is zero rational reason to believe anything Trump says. That is not a biased statement. There simply isn't.

Also, "at cost" seems a fishy assumption to begin with, even if that were true (and not just said because otherwise, it would be breaking the law). Even "at cost", he gets a property rented out that usually is not, especially at the time. Also, detour profitability is probably the biggest factor in deals like this one.

Credit to Trump for blatantly promoting his own property. Pshaw.

Many Trump supporters use this "credit" tactic to take the edge off whatever Trump did.

Trump backs out of Turkey knowing there would be a slaughter of the Kurds...then gets a five day timeout so the remaining Kurds can flee the land that Turkey want to steal from them and we should give him "credit" for the peace.

Trump throws children in cages and separates from their families to the point that they can't find the families...then stops it and we should give him "credit" for stopping.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2019, 12:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Great way to boost the image of a failing business during a slow period. There’s also only 2 presidential suites

Perfect, one for him and one for Putin.
Also a honeymoon suite to please Macron's wife, and a place where he can stay in the meantime.

(10-18-2019, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Many Trump supporters use this "credit" tactic to take the edge off whatever Trump did.

Yep. Also many GOP supporters that need to tolerate Trump because conservatives are still the grown-ups and liberals are kids with no real life experience.

[Benton]

(10-17-2019, 10:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that Trump's appearance of conflict of interest is to be criticized. But in this case does he get any credit for hosting it at cost (as Sunset suggests)? Seems sorta like a bunch of folks planning a party and wondering "Where can we rent" and one of them states "We can do it at my house for free and save money". 

I further agree with your question "Who's to blame" is profound. Reminds me of an IT person once sharing a story of a coworker who crashed a grid on his first day on the job by writing bad code. When the bosses asked him Why did you do it? He said Because you gave me the freedom to. 

Is there any legitimate reason to believe trump is doing it at cost? 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2019, 04:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Is there any legitimate reason to believe trump is doing it at cost? 

1.  There is no reason to believe this claim.

2.  There is no real way to calculate "cost" when it comes to running a resort.

3.  The publicity for his resort will be worth MILLIONS.




But apparently some people are so impressed they are claiming that "for cost" means "free".

[ballsofsteel]

Trump could claim any expenditure he wanted to as "cost".
Someone should beat Nick Mulvaney with a stick.
Trump doesn't even try to hide his crooked actions anymore. He just does what he wants and tells everyone to do something about it.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2019, 04:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Is there any legitimate reason to believe trump is doing it at cost? 

Other than his admin saying so? Nope.

I don't know how many more times I can type it looks bad, but if it saves taxpayers money; there has to be some good in it. 

[hollodero]

(10-18-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Other than his admin saying so? Nope.

So, nope.

(10-18-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know how many more times I can type it looks bad

The reason why this is not believed is that at the same time you find a reason why Trump deserves credit for the thing that looks bad.

[Benton]

(10-18-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Other than his admin saying so? Nope.

I don't know how many more times I can type it looks bad, but if it saves taxpayers money; there has to be some good in it. 

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-has-told-13-435-while-in-office-wapo-71560773873

Considering his penchant for dishonesty and frequent spending of tax dollars at his facilities, I'm surprised anyone is going to just take his word for it. 

As far as if it saves money, I'll support it. But the only way to really know if it does is to compare the numbers after the fact versus when it wasn't held at trump establishments. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-18-2019, 08:33 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-has-told-13-435-while-in-office-wapo-71560773873

Considering his penchant for dishonesty and frequent spending of tax dollars at his facilities, I'm surprised anyone is going to just take his word for it. 

As far as if it saves money, I'll support it. But the only way to really know if it does is to compare the numbers after the fact versus when it wasn't held at trump establishments. 

Even if it saves money, if he received a dime from a foreign government then it’s unconstitutional

[ballsofsteel]

When Trumps guest are ready to turn in for the night, will Trump tell them "sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite"?

[Dill]

(10-18-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Other than his admin saying so? Nope.

I don't know how many more times I can type it looks bad, but if it saves taxpayers money; there has to be some good in it. 

(10-18-2019, 08:33 PM)Benton Wrote: As far as if it saves money, I'll support it. But the only way to really know if it does is to compare the numbers after the fact versus when it wasn't held at trump establishments. 

No guys.  Even if it saves taxpayers money, all that foreign money flowing into Trump's coffers, filling up a resort "at cost" (lol) which would otherwise be largely empty in June, would openly violate the emoluments clause, and to a degree never previously imagined.

So many things wrong here, starting with the unlikelihood that any real bids from other sites were seriously considered, and the show is run by flunkys desperately trying to please the boss.

Add to that the apparent, what, tone-deafness? Insensitivity? Inability to understand how this looks--WHILE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS UNDERWAY??  It's like all the people who understood how government works, how the law works, and could make Trump listen, are gone.

Then there is principle and the norms violated by this offer, regardless of "savings."  Imagine a judge who also owns a private prison to which people he judges can be sent, or a judge who gets kickbacks for sending people there--it would not be ok for a judge to profit off that, even if the prison saved taxpayers money.

Thank heavens Trump has withdrawn the offer and this is a moot point now, but had he gone through with it, successfully, it would have set a terrible precedent, for yet another government "deal" on Trump properties and the inability of either the legislature or judiciary to check his power, or another president's power in the future.

[BmorePat87]

First he said he was the only President to give away his salary (not true) then he said he's really good at real estate, better than anyone knows. He said he's really good at finances, we will find out when the time is right and he releases his finances. He put all of his "stuff" in trusts. He didn't have to. Other presidents ran businesses while they were President. Obama probably did his Netflix and book deals as President.

Democrats "went crazy" with their "phony emoluments clause". The emoluments clause is phony, folks.

[CJD]

I bet his lawyers told him "If you go through with this, you'll get the shit impeached out of you and the Republicans aren't even defending this decision, so it may actually get through the Senate" so he decided against it.

It had nothing to do with what the Democrats and Media said, as they said the exact same things when he "threw it out there" a few months ago at the G7 as a possibility. He didn't care what we thought then, he doesn't now. He just doesn't want to give the Democrats an insanely easy impeachment. Make them work for it a little bit.

[CJD]

From Trump's Cabinet Meeting:

Quote:So whether I lost $2 billion, $5 billion, more or less, it doesn’t make any difference to me. I don’t care. If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-cabinet-meeting-15/

It's always interesting when you hear from the rich how little a wealth tax/increase on tax brackets would affect them before they turn around and do everything they can to prevent such taxes anyway. To Trump, 2 to 5 billion dollars doesn't make any difference, but he gave a tax cut to the rich anyway.

What a world we live in.

[GMDino]

Some praise for my friends on the right for not jumping in here to give Trump "credit" for changing his mind on this.

I'm guessing DJT is feeling real pressure from the GOP that there are somethings even they cannot defend?