(11-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I have been seeing a lot of stuff about Trump insisting on vacationing at his own resorts, I saw speculation about Trump Hotel in DC being used to host dignitaries instead of Blair House. My question is, how do we feel about this? About someone profiting from the office? I say this because we are talking about taxpayer dollars that will be flowing into the pockets of Trump when these places are utilized in this way.

It's my understanding that there was a big dust up for Carter over his peanut farm when he was POTUS because of potential conflicts of interest regarding public policy and him profiting from that. Why haven't we heard more about this regarding Trump? 

(11-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why haven't we heard more about this regarding Trump?

(11-19-2016, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Seeing how he isn't going to accept the salary, and will only intermittently reside in the White House, What is the big deal?

(11-19-2016, 11:26 PM)Benton Wrote: a. Because the presidency shouldn't really be about profiting off the country.
b. He stands to make a lot more this way and donating his salary (which he can claim as a tax deduction). But he doesn't have a choice about accepting the salary. He can donate it, or keep it for himself. He can't simply not accept it. Other public officials have tried that, they still have to take the money.

(11-19-2016, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Seeing how he isn't going to accept the salary, and will only intermittently reside in the White House, What is the big deal?

Quote:Donald Trump: 

“I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,”  "I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”

(11-19-2016, 11:26 PM)Benton Wrote: a. Because the presidency shouldn't really be about profiting off the country.
b. He stands to make a lot more this way and donating his salary (which he can claim as a tax deduction). But he doesn't have a choice about accepting the salary. He can donate it, or keep it for himself. He can't simply not accept it. Other public officials have tried that, they still have to take the money.

(11-19-2016, 11:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Very true on point b. Washington tried it, even, and was forced to take it by Congress. The idea of the POTUS being paid and residing on state property is that it reduces the need for the POTUS to have conflicting interests. Instead of applauding his efforts they should be met with concern.

Also, his whole not living at the WH thing is actually a hefty financial burden of the taxpayers asthey will have to provide the security and infrastructure of the WH at his alternate location.

(11-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I have been seeing a lot of stuff about Trump insisting on vacationing at his own resorts, I saw speculation about Trump Hotel in DC being used to host dignitaries instead of Blair House. My question is, how do we feel about this? About someone profiting from the office? I say this because we are talking about taxpayer dollars that will be flowing into the pockets of Trump when these places are utilized in this way.

It's my understanding that there was a big dust up for Carter over his peanut farm when he was POTUS because of potential conflicts of interest regarding public policy and him profiting from that. Why haven't we heard more about this regarding Trump?

(11-20-2016, 12:47 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Without intending to preach the moral high ground, my first reaction has to do with ethics, or the lack thereof. You are hearkening  back to a day when eliminating any conflict of interest was a premium requirement for public officials. Ethics have been challenged for God knows how long, but seemingly no more so than the past few decades. Now that we have around 60 million voters showing the rest of the world that proper ethics have no place in the Oval Office, what we see is going to be the norm for a lot longer than most can imagine. Politicians do not give ethics top priority anymore. Neither do some voters.

(11-20-2016, 04:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As far as staying at Trump tower vs Blair House? Blair House was not intended to be a long term living space, there just simply isn't enough room there for DJT and his staff. 

(11-19-2016, 10:20 PM)xxlt Wrote: Because Trump has one agenda - benefiting Tump - and almost half of Americans endorse that and would gladly use the office of President for personal gain.

(11-20-2016, 05:05 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Cuz Hillary never is interested in personal gain 


The butthurt from you over the election is hilarious.  :andy:

(11-19-2016, 11:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  

Also, his whole not living at the WH thing is actually a hefty financial burden of the taxpayers asthey will have to provide the security and infrastructure of the WH at his alternate location.

(11-20-2016, 06:28 PM)Benton Wrote: One other thought/question that we'll have to see as things go forward.

Is he planning on upgrading his properties on taxpayer money? If he's planning on primarily staying at his own properties, is he going to renovate to accommodate on his own dime since it's taxpayer money, or use public funds for something he gets to keep later?

(11-20-2016, 04:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I understand that Bel, I'm saying that Bush and Obama kicked the can down the road (renovations) and Trump can pick up the can and profit from it as well. And it just so happens that Trump is was gifted the perfect opportunity. Any POTUS that could, would.

(11-20-2016, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that is unethical. Period. Personal gain from policy decisions in office is a conflict of interest and is an ethics violation for any branch of our government, and for the private sector for that matter (insider trading).