- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 31,842
- Reaction score
- 15,818
- Location
- Seattle Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh for Pete's sake...
If everyone else comparable says it will be more and if you have all kinds of data from previous events that gives you an idea of how much it's supposed to cost and if Trump's quote is lower then you're saving money.
Seriously, if you go to Kroger and find a 2 liter bottle of Coke for 99 cents and then go to Piggly Wiggly and find a 2 liter bottle of coke for $1.09 which one costs less?
They were targeting "at cost". As I stated....We will see in the end.
I disagree that "we will see in the end". As trump has done with everything else he and his administration will stonewall any disclosures of actual costs of the event.
The fact that the G7 at Doral was to be held at cost doesn't influence your statement above, which is exactly what I referred to.
Yes, because there is no other place in the entire US which could possibly serve to host the G7 other than Trump's Florida Golf Resort :roll:
Will be interesting to compare and contrast the venue that is ultimately chosen over what could have been at Doral.
Wonder if Democrats in the media will think so too.....
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
That rant has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject here.
I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the G7. It can be held at a local Salvation Army auditorium for all I care.
It's just nuts to assume there's some corrupt ulterior motive on Trump's part before the facts are known, not the least of which is that it would be illegal for Trump to profit from it.
As I said, it took more mental effort for you to find the letters on your keyboard than you put into your post, I'm being kind in putting it that way.
I agree that we can obtain verifiable quotes from comparable properties. That's not the issue.
So.. I'll ask one last time: Do you think trump will actually quote the actual cost and then show the world the actual invoices from the event? Based on how "transparent and truthful" trump has been in the past? To borrow your phrase: "Oh for Pete's sake!".
As I keep saying: had trump personally hosted the event, the actual costs would not be disclosed.We will see where G7 ends up and can make an educated guess. Unless you think public room costs are classified.
And after the event at trump's property is done, how will you verify what the cost to the taxpayer actually was?I don't know whether he will or not and, frankly, I don't care. If it's done for at or below the rates we know about then it saves the taxpayers money and THAT is my primary concern.
I don't know whether he will or not and, frankly, I don't care. If it's done for at or below the rates we know about then it saves the taxpayers money and THAT is my primary concern.
Let the record show, that you don't give a **** about law.
Can you please tell us what the "at cost" is?
What is "cost" at Doral today exactly?
I absolutely care about the law and I absolutely HATE when it's abused for the purpose of ****ing over someone you disagree with politically.
I truly don't know what the cost of operating such a place might be. I'm sure those who manage such places have a handle on it.
I am, however, fairly aware of how base costs are fluffed up, so I assume those who manage such places and events are very well aware of such things.
I absolutely care about the law and I absolutely HATE when it's abused for the purpose of ****ing over someone you disagree with politically.
It's not insane to assume a corrupt intent. He has displayed corrupt intent his entire life.
Only the blind would try and debate this with me.
Turn your ****ing filter off.
I don't know whether he will or not and, frankly, I don't care. If it's done for at or below the rates we know about then it saves the taxpayers money and THAT is my primary concern.
The Doral property has been grossly underbooked for years, and particularly the last few years. Having the G7 there enriches the Trumps as they need the rooms filled - cost or no cost.
Trump should never have suggested this. Ever. It was a terrible move and it was corrupt. He can't use his office to help his failing resort. You would say that if it was Obama or Biden or Schiff or anyone else, too.
The condition of Doral may not be financially great, but that doesn't mean a profit will be made. That's an assumption of illegality where none exists.
I agree that Trump's Doral decision was politically ham fisted. The response was predictable. That doesn't mean the response is justified, but he surely should've seen it coming.
Nobody should care if Doral makes a profit. And people should care if the POTUS uses his power to fill up his own underperforming property. You disagree?
By the way, I never said it was illegal. It may be, but I didn't say it. It's disgusting. It's self-serving. It's wrong. Full stop - which is why most everyone in both parties objected to it.
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?
So if you care about the Law then you don't care whether or not Trump saves money for the tax payers or not in this instance since by taking the contract for the G7 he would be committing a felony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?