You've said conservative interpretation of the constitution is key to running the country, but Trump should be free to ignore it if he wants to.Jay wrote:
I don't know why you're all trying to put me in a position to defend the guy. At best, I've said I like some of his cabinet picks, but I guess that's a strong enough endorsement to make me the antichrist. Whatever.
Uzi is arguing a hypothetical situation. There's nothing that explicitly states he has to divest his entire business. Uzi is saying the potential for corruption is enough. I'm saying it's not. That's literally what this conversation boils down to.Dilbert_X wrote:
You've said conservative interpretation of the constitution is key to running the country, but Trump should be free to ignore it if he wants to.Jay wrote:
I don't know why you're all trying to put me in a position to defend the guy. At best, I've said I like some of his cabinet picks, but I guess that's a strong enough endorsement to make me the antichrist. Whatever.
We're trying to understand this disconnection.
I haven't contradicted myself, it's just their favorite debate tactic to claim inconsistencies. Whatever.coke wrote:
I prefer it when Jay just replies with "ok", its the only consistency his posts have.
He posts his opinions (fine) but when questioned on them or the constant contradictions we get an "ok". Then usually a complete change of topic.
I already said I don't care. Claim victory and move on. It's 5, 6, 7 on 1 here.SuperJail Warden wrote:
jay is sort of like trump. he can never not have the last word or admit he was wrong. instead of just disengaging from a conversation, he doubles down on the stupid until he ends up contradicting himself from just a few days ago
Last edited by uziq (2017-01-14 12:27:59)
I didn't read any of thisuziq wrote:
everyone turns on you jay because you make a bunch of unsupported (insupportable) claims, link to a fortune or reason dot com article, and then retreat into one-word responses and irrelevancies. i don't think you understand the positions you profess to take. you like the idea of being a constitutionalist and taking on an arch and conservative, grand tone and you've gone with that.
first you said that clause didn't apply to the president. i linked an originalist reading that said it patently did. you ignored it and started talking about 'innocent until proven guilty'. we're not talking hypotheticals at all. trump's business empire actively engages with international powers. there's a much publicised rent case with the chinese in the papers right now. that is a prime route for money and favours to lubricate diplomacy and make trump more amenable to the chinese (not for reasons of state but because they tickle his ego with their cash). the constitution explicitly forbids this sort of subtle influencing. trump should give up his business empire. he is compromised by a conflict of interests otherwise. no hypotheticals.
it's not 'when trump does deal with a foreign power'. as a constitutionalist you should know that these clauses exist to be pre-emptive and to avoid complex court conflicts. this requirement is stated up front for holders of office to prevent american politics from being embroiled in legal disputes and potential corruptions; it's there as a preventative measure to keep politics clean and noble. but no, you don't like that. you fundamentally don't understand the positions you claim to take. this makes you look like an moran.
There's no 'hypothetical situation', Trump Is going to be President - there's nothing hypothetical about this. American Presidents are expected to wholly divest themselves of any business interests which could remotely overlap with their responsibilities and influence - which as President basically covers everything conceivable.Jay wrote:
Uzi is arguing a hypothetical situation. There's nothing that explicitly states he has to divest his entire business. Uzi is saying the potential for corruption is enough. I'm saying it's not. That's literally what this conversation boils down to.
Name one president that entered the white house with assets and completely divested everything. We don't elect monks or academics in this country.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no 'hypothetical situation', Trump Is going to be President - there's nothing hypothetical about this. American Presidents are expected to wholly divest themselves of any business interests which could remotely overlap with their responsibilities and influence - which as President basically covers everything conceivable.Jay wrote:
Uzi is arguing a hypothetical situation. There's nothing that explicitly states he has to divest his entire business. Uzi is saying the potential for corruption is enough. I'm saying it's not. That's literally what this conversation boils down to.
This isn't some new idea, its applied to all Presidents since whenever.
Since Trump won't publish his tax returns (or his company accounts? I forget) no-one even knows what his business interests really are.
The whole basis of the constitution is precautionary, the whole basis of government is precautionary.
The problem is you're exclusively reactionary - because you think it suits your interests - except when it doesn't your interests - then you want everything as precautionary as it can be.
youJay wrote:
Name one president that entered the white house with assets and completely divested everything. We don't elect monks or academics in this country.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no 'hypothetical situation', Trump Is going to be President - there's nothing hypothetical about this. American Presidents are expected to wholly divest themselves of any business interests which could remotely overlap with their responsibilities and influence - which as President basically covers everything conceivable.Jay wrote:
Uzi is arguing a hypothetical situation. There's nothing that explicitly states he has to divest his entire business. Uzi is saying the potential for corruption is enough. I'm saying it's not. That's literally what this conversation boils down to.
This isn't some new idea, its applied to all Presidents since whenever.
Since Trump won't publish his tax returns (or his company accounts? I forget) no-one even knows what his business interests really are.
The whole basis of the constitution is precautionary, the whole basis of government is precautionary.
The problem is you're exclusively reactionary - because you think it suits your interests - except when it doesn't your interests - then you want everything as precautionary as it can be.
I think you're the one that doesn't understand it. This is strictly a political talking point and has nothing to do with reality. Do a Google search of "trump divestiture" and it's a who's who of the left wing media screaming in breathless headlines. It's not reality uzi, sorry. Nearly every president has divested their assets or placed them in a blind trust, but there's no actual law that requires it.uziq wrote:
youJay wrote:
Name one president that entered the white house with assets and completely divested everything. We don't elect monks or academics in this country.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no 'hypothetical situation', Trump Is going to be President - there's nothing hypothetical about this. American Presidents are expected to wholly divest themselves of any business interests which could remotely overlap with their responsibilities and influence - which as President basically covers everything conceivable.
This isn't some new idea, its applied to all Presidents since whenever.
Since Trump won't publish his tax returns (or his company accounts? I forget) no-one even knows what his business interests really are.
The whole basis of the constitution is precautionary, the whole basis of government is precautionary.
The problem is you're exclusively reactionary - because you think it suits your interests - except when it doesn't your interests - then you want everything as precautionary as it can be.
simply
don't
understand
the
emoluments
clause
Sure, it would undoubtedly remove a potential conflict of interest, and from a PR perspective it's obviously something of a nightmare, but it's his call. I'm hopeful that he's wealthy enough that he would be immune to temptation, but I'm no fortune teller. We'll see.Dilbert_X wrote:
We're not talking about assets, we're talking about business interests, dur. No-one is expected to sell their houses or cars.
Name one US President who refused to disclose his tax returns.
Since you ask, here is what the last however many Presidents did on entering the White House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … ed522be45b
Maybe its not required by the letter of the law, but its a way to avoid every single decision being scrutinised for conflict of interest issues and every single decision being an opportunity for impeachment., more so when he won't disclose his tax returns.
Seems like he'd be stupid not to. Oh well.
Last edited by Jay (2017-01-14 15:28:28)
That's their opinion. Opinion. Not real. Give up, you pompous jackass.uziq wrote:
literally facepalming. it's not about what the president stands to gain. read the brookings report i linked a few pages ago. it embodies the constitutionalist viewpoint very well. you should do your revision.
i'm presenting their legal interpretation (very different from an opinion) because it is LITERALLY the 'originalist' reading you were talking about so highly a few pages back. three pages ago you were saying how progressives are murdering the constitution and scalia was an excellent judge. you were telling me i didn't know what literalism was and said 'it's about context'. i just showed you an originalist reading that gave both context and exercised the literal rule of judicial interpretation. and you ... ignored it.Jay wrote:
That's their opinion. Opinion. Not real. Give up, you pompous jackass.uziq wrote:
literally facepalming. it's not about what the president stands to gain. read the brookings report i linked a few pages ago. it embodies the constitutionalist viewpoint very well. you should do your revision.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-01-14 16:13:12)
Uzi is sourcing a think tank, not the law. And custom is different than law. There's no law stating a candidate needs to release his tax returns either, only custom.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its the opinion of the last five US Presidents, Republican and Democrat, pretty well everyone on earth except Trump basically.
What is 'not real' about it?
I'd say it's been entertaining watching Hillary supporters come completely unglued since the election but it's not really. I was really hoping everything would cool off after the election, but it feels like there are still just as many people talking about it three months later, and the campaign propaganda is still just as heavy. This has been the worst election of my life, not because of who was elected, but because of the reaction and seemingly perpetual rage. It's tiring and I just want to be able to go back to ignoring DC.Jaekus wrote:
It's going to be entertaining watching the faces of these devout Trump supporters melt off when his administration implodes. I think I need to stock up on popcorn.
i'm sourcing three legal scholars who have provided an originalist legal interpretation of the emoluments clause. look back a few pages at what you were saying about progressives' misuse of the constitution. now think very hard with that 350mhz processor in your head about what this has to do with your nonsense proclamations about being 'a constitutionalist'.Jay wrote:
Uzi is sourcing a think tank, not the law. And custom is different than law. There's no law stating a candidate needs to release his tax returns either, only custom.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its the opinion of the last five US Presidents, Republican and Democrat, pretty well everyone on earth except Trump basically.
What is 'not real' about it?
