View Full Version : Trump and the Techies
Miss Cellane
12-15-16, 8:04am
So Trump meets with the top tech people in the US. And three of his children attend the meeting. There were 25 attendees, including Trump and the 3 children. So 16% of the attendees, according to Business Insider, were Trump or his family.
Why were they there?
They are not part of the government. Pence was there, but he is part of the newly forming government.
Could they have been there for business reasons?
Could that be a conflict of interest?
Trump really needs to define the roles his children are going to be filling. If they are part of a blind trust type of thing, running his business, then they shouldn't be at meetings such as this one. If they are going to be presidential advisors, as some rumors have mentioned about Ivanka, then that needs to be made clear to the public.
Today is the day Trump was supposed to announce how his businesses would be handled, but he has postponed that announcement.
And in other news, a judge has ruled that Trump must answer questions from the defendants' lawyers, in a lawsuit Trump filed against two chefs, who refused to open previously-agreed upon restaurants in his hotels, because of his negative remarks about certain groups of people. The judge is requiring him to answer questions, but he can do this in NYC instead of Washington, DC.
iris lilies
12-15-16, 11:52am
I do hope that Trump's business interest do not become a continuing news story in his Presidency.
And in other news, a judge has ruled that Trump must answer questions from the defendants' lawyers, in a lawsuit Trump filed against two chefs, who refused to open previously-agreed upon restaurants in his hotels, because of his negative remarks about certain groups of people. The judge is requiring him to answer questions, but he can do this in NYC instead of Washington, DC.
I'm not a fan of the Donald, nor am I a fan of people who will not live up to their obligations. If the two chefs fail to honor their agreements (undoubtedly contractual), how does that reflect badly on the injured party?
Miss Cellane
12-15-16, 2:33pm
I'm not a fan of the Donald, nor am I a fan of people who will not live up to their obligations. If the two chefs fail to honor their agreements (undoubtedly contractual), how does that reflect badly on the injured party?
I did not say it reflected badly on Trump that he filed suit. Trump is refusing (or trying to refuse) to answer questions, because he is too busy. But the defendants have rights, too, and the judge has decided that because they refused to honor their contracts because of what Trump said, Trump does indeed need to answer questions about that.
He should be comfortable doing that. He's been involved in close to 4,000 law suits over the years. Wonder if he'll keep that up as President?
I did not say it reflected badly on Trump that he filed suit. Trump is refusing (or trying to refuse) to answer questions, because he is too busy. But the defendants have rights, too, and the judge has decided that because they refused to honor their contracts because of what Trump said, Trump does indeed need to answer questions about that.
He should be comfortable doing that. He's been involved in close to 4,000 law suits over the years. Wonder if he'll keep that up as President?
It should be pretty simple - if he doesn't want to be involved with the suit he filed, can't he just drop the suit?
ToomuchStuff
12-15-16, 3:48pm
I do wonder at what point do you realize that he is not in office yet, and still owns his business. Now after he is sworn in lets see how these activities go.
As for the chef's, well I have no access to any of their contracts. For all I know they could have used a morals clause, back against Trump.
It's hard to guess the guy, but I suspect his conflicts of interest, his family roles in his regime, his tax returns, and anything else that might be lawfully controversial will only be revealed after the electoral votes are in or after he is sworn in. Any balance of power that might have once existed is going to be much weaker with a GOP congress, a Supreme Court that is going to be more in his favor, several cabinet members trying to figure out their new roles, and his ability to intimidate his critics. I picture Donald taking advantage of these to take his personal interests to the limit.
I think he just enjoys the effect he has on the opposition, and I think he has the ability to inspire a state of apoplectic furor in Democrats that will ensure Republican dominance at all levels of government for years to come.
They are not part of the government.
Neither is Trump, yet.
I listened to this speech this morning. It makes me long for another FDR. Because it's happening all over again.
(excerpted)
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.
Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.
Well said Jane....I don't think anyone is listening.
I listened to this speech this morning. It makes me long for another FDR. Because it's happening all over again.
FDR? Wasn't he the guy who issued Executive Order 9066? I hear it was so much fun...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gSShuQCUE
I don't understand how Trump can be sworn in with all these unanswered questions about various things like taxes, his businesses, his children so involved now etc. seems like these things should all be resolved before he can legally be president. I guess it's not that way though.
I don't understand how Trump can be sworn in with all these unanswered questions about various things like taxes, his businesses, his children so involved now etc. seems like these things should all be resolved before he can legally be president. I guess it's not that way though.
Something about the rule-of-law.
I don't understand how Trump can be sworn in with all these unanswered questions about various things like taxes, his businesses, his children so involved now etc. seems like these things should all be resolved before he can legally be president. I guess it's not that way though.
I'm glad it's not that way. Who would you establish as the gatekeeper? I could see all kinds of partisan gamesmanship if some individual or group could override the Electoral College vote on real or imagined ethical technicalities. I suspect that's why conflict of interest rules are so loose regarding the president.
frugal-one
12-16-16, 12:21pm
[QUOTE=ToomuchStuff;259419]I do wonder at what point do you realize that he is not in office yet, and still owns his business. Now after he is sworn in lets see how these activities go.
He is getting briefings now that could/would affect his businesses. I think his "activities" should reflect this.
FDR? Wasn't he the guy who issued Executive Order 9066? I hear it was so much fun...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gSShuQCUE
To his shame, of course he was. But he was absolutely right on the money (ha!) when it came to the disastrous effects of unbridled greed on the nation.
Miss Cellane
12-16-16, 1:00pm
[QUOTE=ToomuchStuff;259419]I do wonder at what point do you realize that he is not in office yet, and still owns his business. Now after he is sworn in lets see how these activities go.
He is getting briefings now that could/would affect his businesses. I think his "activities" should reflect this.
Well, he's supposed to be getting briefings. But he's a smart guy, he doesn't need them every day. Pence can take care of them.
Which is not a bad thing. Can you see him tweeting classified material on a whim?
I'm glad it's not that way. Who would you establish as the gatekeeper? I could see all kinds of partisan gamesmanship if some individual or group could override the Electoral College vote on real or imagined ethical technicalities. I suspect that's why conflict of interest rules are so loose regarding the president.
Partisan gamesmanship? Don't make me laugh. The Republicans (now with the Russians) are absolute masters of that, with their fake news and fake outrage.
This Russian deal is shaping up as much bigger than Watergate, but with Republicans in power, it will probably be deep-sixed.
ApatheticNoMore
12-16-16, 1:24pm
Is there any particular piece of fake news that they are saying in theory (causation on this is had to prove) could have somehow helped Trump get elected?
The Podesta emails I don't think are fake. So those are actually REAL but unflattering news it seems to me. And unless everything and the kitchen sink is being thrown under the umbrella of "fake news" (like Comney and the FBI who might have lied, since we have seen no evidence, but that's NOT news reporting) then what?
If fake news just means don't trust Alex Jones, or not everything on right wing radio is the whole truth or something, well yea but how is any of that remotely new, and it's audience is probably much the same as it's ever been. If fake news is decades old scandals from the Clinton 90s or something, yea some of it is no doubt fake but DECADES old (Russian influence at work then too? Russians been influencing U.S. politics for 3 decades?). If it really just amounts to taking decades old features of the news environment, that may indeed be negative, and suddenly blaming them for a Trump win, well yea they are some long run causation (and so is much else) but I'm asking where is the proximate cause here?
ETA: I guess I thought of one, the rumor mill speculation on Hillary's health, of course I don't even claim to know what Hillary's health really is, but other than one clear case where she lied about it, it seemed largely speculative, with whole theories been spun out about Hillary body doubles etc.. If you can call any of this news I guess.
Partisan gamesmanship? Don't make me laugh. The Republicans (now with the Russians) are absolute masters of that, with their fake news and fake outrage.
This Russian deal is shaping up as much bigger than Watergate, but with Republicans in power, it will probably be deep-sixed.
I agree that it's a serious matter when hostile intelligence services decide to act like Edward Snowden, and that some sort of retaliation may be in order. But it doesn't follow from that that setting up some extra-constitutional authority to disqualify duly elected presidents whose interests don't pass the smell test of the moment is a good idea. Although I could see how the Left might want to gin up an updated Red Scare.
As far as virtuous Democrats being unwilling to stoop to the level of conniving Republicans, I doubt we will ever arrive at any agreement here. I'm content to let history (and perhaps the Sanders campaign) pronounce on that in due course.
frugal-one
12-16-16, 3:51pm
I agree that it's a serious matter when hostile intelligence services decide to act like Edward Snowden, and that some sort of retaliation may be in order. But it doesn't follow from that that setting up some extra-constitutional authority to disqualify duly elected presidents whose interests don't pass the smell test of the moment is a good idea. Although I could see how the Left might want to gin up an updated Red Scare.
As far as virtuous Democrats being unwilling to stoop to the level of conniving Republicans, I doubt we will ever arrive at any agreement here. I'm content to let history (and perhaps the Sanders campaign) pronounce on that in due course.
Duly could be contradicted.
Duly could be contradicted.
Not really. It could be lamented or considered unsatisfactory or unfair, but it cannot be contradicted.
Teacher Terry
12-16-16, 4:19pm
I have had heard any news for 9 days as I was on a wonderful cruise. Now I am back in our sad reality for this country. However, I cheer myself with the thought that I highly doubt he will either last 4 years or get re-elected. People will regret their vote and then we will hopefully get someone competent. We have had some good Republican presidents and all seemed to take the job seriously even if I didn't agree with all their decisions. I don't agree with all the democrats decisions either. Creating fear and hate for entire groups of people is not in anyone's best interests and never has been. Yes we as a country have done some shameful things and still are to entire groups of people. But to have our leader encourage such behavior and get elected is really shameful.
Creating fear and hate for entire groups of people is not in anyone's best interests and never has been.
You might even say it was deplorable.
Teacher Terry
12-16-16, 5:58pm
Yep, I am sure people in WI are over their dislike of IL people. I left there in 1993 so I am sure they have assimilated>8). Actually they weren't really hated but disliked by many for valid reason. However, this has happened to other parts of the country too with property values skyrocketing, etc. Some people don't mind moving and many CA retirees cash out their tiny homes worth a small fortune and move here. Then they can pay cash for a house and have lots of $ left over. It is just change and that is the only constant. I have lived in 5 different states for economic reasons as I am sure many others have.
frugal-one
12-16-16, 8:34pm
[QUOTE=frugal-one;259459]
Well, he's supposed to be getting briefings. But he's a smart guy, he doesn't need them every day. Pence can take care of them.
Which is not a bad thing. Can you see him tweeting classified material on a whim?
I hope this is sarcasm!
frugal-one
12-16-16, 8:35pm
You might even say it was deplorable.
I wouldn't say this constitutes hate or fear.
frugal-one
12-16-16, 8:35pm
Yep, I am sure people in WI are over their dislike of IL people. I left there in 1993 so I am sure they have assimilated>8). Actually they weren't really hated but disliked by many for valid reason. However, this has happened to other parts of the country too with property values skyrocketing, etc. Some people don't mind moving and many CA retirees cash out their tiny homes worth a small fortune and move here. Then they can pay cash for a house and have lots of $ left over. It is just change and that is the only constant. I have lived in 5 different states for economic reasons as I am sure many others have.
Where did you get the idea that WI hates IL? Why?
I do hope that Trump's business interest do not become a continuing news story in his Presidency.
I suspect that your hope is not going to be realized because he certainly shows no sign of backing away from his business life.
Miss Cellane
12-17-16, 7:48am
[QUOTE=Miss Cellane;259461]
I hope this is sarcasm!
Here's a link to the transcript of the interview where Trump says he only needs the intelligence briefing once a week because he is smart: http://time.com/4597416/transcript-donald-trump-fox-interview/ It's worth a read.
Here's the relevant excerpt:
WALLACE: I just want to ask you about your skepticism about the intelligence community. You are getting the presidential daily brief —
TRUMP: Yes.
WALLACE: — only once a week.
TRUMP: Well, I get it when I need it.
WALLACE: But is there some skepticism?
TRUMP: First of all, these are very good people that are giving me the briefings. If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on one minute’s notice.
I don’t have to be told — you know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. It could be eight years — but eight years. I don’t need that.
But I do say if something should change, let us know. Now, in the meantime, my generals are great, are being briefed. Mike Pence is being briefed, who is, by the way, one of my very good decisions. He’s terrific. And they’re being briefed. And I’m being briefed also.
But if they’re going to come in and tell me the exact same thing that they told me, you know, that doesn’t change necessarily. There might be times where it might change. I mean, there will be some very fluid situations. I’ll be there not every day but more than that.
But I don’t need to be told, Chris, the same thing every day, every morning, same words. Sir, nothing has changed. Let’s go over it again. I don’t need that.
(source: Time magazine)
frugal-one
12-17-16, 2:47pm
As someone here already said.... If you hear someone say they are smart.... be assured they are NOT!
BTW ... it was not worth a read!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.