• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G7 Fiasco, Trump Lied Again

Pound4abrown

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
4,954
Reaction score
2,590
Location
Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not necessarily. You could very easily propose to do the event at cost...which, I believe, is what Trump agreed to.

As far as “free advertising”, give me a break. Trump is the last guy in the world that needs more advertising.
Sure. Let's examine this "at cost" narrative. If you have a hotel that is down 60% during the time-frame of when the G7 is to meet, would full occupancy at "cost" be more or less money to the Hotel?
How long do you suppose representatives from each of the G7 countries are going to have to be at Doral to make sure everything is safe and to make sure all of their needs are met? A few weeks, a month? 100 nights? Where do they stay? And who is paying who for those nights?
Let's also remember that Doral would need updates purely for security reasons, and then there would need to be updates to some of the suites, unless you think all 7 heads of State are going to bunk in the 2 presidential suites Doral currently has.
Where are the Helipads going to go? Will there need to be repairs to where-ever they are located once they are removed? If so, who pays for that?
Sure "at cost" that wasn't going to put any money into Trump's pocket. (And notice I didn't even mention the fumigation costs so all the world leaders and their entourage don't get bedbugs courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.)
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
3,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If his company can pull off the job as effectively and at lower cost than the competition then it’s STILL a good deal for the taxpayer.
Irrelevant. It reeks of corruption. Who cares if it costs less? It fills rooms at a troubled venue at taxpayers expense. Imagine if he directed millions of taxpayer dollars to himself while giving discounts on “Trump Steaks” for the troops overseas, served only discounted Trump wine at White House functions, etc. The man is a crook, albeit one with “great and unmatched wisdom.” Mafia cement suppliers have better ethical sense than he. Republicans didn’t buy that argument. Neither should you. You don’t need a degree from Trump University to figure it out.
 
Last edited:

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
American Taxpayers need to eat it. Read above. "That's the law"!

There are plenty of locations.

The City of Milwaukee invites you to consider hosting the 2020 Group of 7 (G7) meeting in our community.

"I can assure you of full cooperation from Milwaukee’s hospitality businesses and other local companies. You would also have all appropriate support from local government for a G7 meeting here. Security preparations are well advanced as southeastern Wisconsin is already planning for both the Democratic National Convention and the Ryder Cup later next year.

Yes, Milwaukee would be an ideal location for the upcoming G7 gathering, and I strongly encourage you to bring the G7 meeting here.

Most respectfully,

Tom Barrett Mayor "
 
Last edited:

Praxas

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
20,213
Reaction score
10,556
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
Here's the thing, I don't trust a single thing that comes out of Trump's mouth. The answer is simple, it is a clear conflict of interest for him to hold it there and I don't believe he would hold it at cost. Every single time he has said he "hosted" something at cost it turns out to be anything but that.

There is a place created for these types of events and it is called Camp David. Plain and simple. What's the hard part to understand with this and why are you cons so interested in lining Trump's pockets?
 

Praxas

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
20,213
Reaction score
10,556
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
American Taxpayers need to eat it. Read above. "That's the law"!
No, we need cons likes you to line Trump's pockets even more. Trump lies, it wouldn't be at cost, it never is. That is why Camp David was created. Use it .
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
14,020
Reaction score
4,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
First, that's a fallacious assumption. trump isn't some master of value. But to answer your question, yes, it'd still be a problem because of the emoluments issue. We don't have our president getting money from foreign sources for a reason.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
36,766
Reaction score
44,012
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes. Full stop. At cost still puts money in Donald's pockets. That this is ok for you, is troubling.
How the heck does doing something at cost "enrich" someone? If it costs you $500 to do a certain job and you charge $500 to your customer how much were you "enriched"?
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, we need cons likes you to line Trump's pockets even more. Trump lies, it wouldn't be at cost, it never is. That is why Camp David was created. Use it .
Constitutionalists? Why thank you.

I like "at cost" wherever it is actually.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How the heck does doing something at cost "enrich" someone? If it costs you $500 to do a certain job and you charge $500 to your customer how much were you "enriched"?
Trump likes to host. Free or not, Happy orange man is worse than anything else to them.

 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
14,020
Reaction score
4,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, it would be problem. Trump owns the place and no doubt saw an opportunity for some easy money. That would constitute both a huge conflict of interests and a violation of the emoluments legislation-unless, of course, Trump suddenly got an attack of generosity and offered the place for free.
trump said he'd offer it 'at cost', but even that's a problem. The property is having big problems, down 69% in revenue because of trump's politics being unpopular, and the money would help keep it in business; but the bottom line is the emoluments issue, with that help for trump coming from abusing his powers to get foreign leaders to pay him money, even if it's not 'profit'. And like we could trust him on that, either.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
3,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Those of us that actually work.
Then let him find a cheaper place that he doesn’t own. The idea stunk of corruption, Al Capone-style. Why do you think anti-tax republicans objected? Why did Trump back down? (I know, I know, the Soros-backed media ruined it.)
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
14,020
Reaction score
4,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How the heck does doing something at cost "enrich" someone? If it costs you $500 to do a certain job and you charge $500 to your customer how much were you "enriched"?
First, the issue isn't 'enriching' trump. It's his being paid at all by foreign sources. Second, the money DOES help him, even at cost. As I said above, the property is down 69% on revenue, and even business that pays it costs helps it stay afloat - but like I said, it's not about how much it benefits trump, it's simply his getting paid personally by foreign leaders at all. It's an abuse of power. And a side comment is that we couldn't trust him anyway.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2,228
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not necessarily. You could very easily propose to do the event at cost...which, I believe, is what Trump agreed to.

As far as “free advertising”, give me a break. Trump is the last guy in the world that needs more advertising.
Unfortunately what "Trump agrees to do" has as much value as weeds growing curbside. Do you recall him telling American's he'd be so busy working for us he'd never have time for golf? How's that working out? Not only does he golf more than any president in history, he pockets money with each trip from what his SS and staff have to pay while staying.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Then let him find a cheaper place that he doesn’t own.
Looks like they will. Sleep contentedly that we will likely pay more now. We will see in the end.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
3,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Looks like they will. Sleep contentedly that we will likely pay more now. We will see in the end.
Sometimes being ethical and obeying the law costs more. I can accept that.
 

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
19,459
Reaction score
9,299
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No surprise here. The truth is the opposite of what Trump said.

The reason Trump dropped his Florida resort as the next G7 venue is the opposite to the one he tweeted



I'm not even sure this guy can speak the truth. I can't recall a single instance when he spoke without some form of distortion or exaggeration of what the facts really said.
Strange that didn't stop him from withdrawing the support troops from Syria. There must have been another reason trump backed off on the Doral boondoggle. The fear of infecting world leaders with bedbugs?

Who knows?
 

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
19,459
Reaction score
9,299
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
Yes, as it would bother me if a Democratic president tried something like that. It's a huge conflict of interest. And besides - who would know if it was done at cost - because the trump administration claims it is - yeah, why would they lie?
 

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
19,459
Reaction score
9,299
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, it would be problem. Trump owns the place and no doubt saw an opportunity for some easy money. That would constitute both a huge conflict of interests and a violation of the emoluments legislation-unless, of course, Trump suddenly got an attack of generosity and offered the place for free.
He was also motivated by having images and information of and about his property broadcast worldwide. The free advertising was the major motivator.
 

Eriech

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
555
That this is called a "lie" is indicative. Do you think Republicans would have objected if Democrats and Democrats in the media hadn't gotten their panties in a twist?
Trump didn't care what Democrats in the media thought unfortunately some Republicans still do. Providing cover for wobbly Republicans isn't a lie. Blaming them wouldn't have been either but what purpose would that serve?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2,228
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How the heck does doing something at cost "enrich" someone? If it costs you $500 to do a certain job and you charge $500 to your customer how much were you "enriched"?
Because again, Trump can't be trusted that it cost $500. He's already known to inflate numbers as well as deflate them so it makes him money. So he tells you it cost $500 to do something and he shows you the estimate. What he doesn't show you is the second estimate that is $250. So did you pay the at cost $500 and think he made nothing? No, you paid $250 for whatever the item/service was and you gave him $250. This is what happens when you deal with a con man. Art of the deal!
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,626
Reaction score
9,425
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
It is.

If you are writing a guideline on ethical practices for politicians, the first thing you'd right down is that politicians shouldn't give themselves government contracts.

If we elect the owner of a car dealership as the next president, he shouldn't give his dealership a contract to supply the federal government with cars, even if he thinks he can get them a better price. But in reality, what we have here with Trump, was them saying "the government will buy all of it's cars from the presidents dealerships, which we will get a great price on, but we will not let anybody see the selection process or any of the work that we did to determine that it's the best price." It's filthy from the top to the bottom.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2,228
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, as it would bother me if a Democratic president tried something like that. It's a huge conflict of interest. And besides - who would know if it was done at cost - because the trump administration claims it is - yeah, why would they lie?
Exactly.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,160
Reaction score
17,297
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe this is a dumb question but if doing the G7 at Doral could be done for less money than doing it elsewhere (comparable elsewhere. I'm not talking about doing it at the Holiday Inn on the south side) would it still be a problem for you guys?
Doesn't matter to the politically insane here. If Trump suggested, or actually did it - whatever it is - it's bad. It's so easy to do. No thought is required at all.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
32,997
Reaction score
16,341
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If his company can pull off the job as effectively and at lower cost than the competition then it’s STILL a good deal for the taxpayer.
It's like one of those little pictures in the dictionary. Look up "corruption" and you could find "high government official profiting from government contracts" used as an example.
 
Top Bottom