Beat a Clinton in an election and it’s the winner with ethics problems?

Even with these steps, Mr. Trump will enter the White House with a maze of financial holdings unlike those of any other president in American history. Many ethics experts still say the only way Mr. Trump can eliminate his most serious conflicts is to liquidate his company, and then put the money into a blind trust — a move Mr. Trump has so far rejected as impractical and unreasonable.

Note what such complaints also do. They are close to insisting that anyone who has succeeded in business cannot run for the office in future. Obviously, I’ve no idea whether Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, even consider such a thing. But this insistence that entire industrial empires must be sold off before taking office is indeed tantamount to insisting that no one of such should be allowed to sully the Oval Office with their presence.

And it’s not obvious that any of them would be a bad President, is it?

27 comments on “Beat a Clinton in an election and it’s the winner with ethics problems?

  1. I can’t believe that after all we have learned about Hillary’s corrupt pay-for-play schemes masquerading as a charity, people think Trump has the problem.

    In my New Year’s resolution this year I think I will resolve not merely to stop giving a sh!t what leftists think but to even to respond to them in any way at all. They are like Brighton Rock in reverse – the bitterness goes all the way to the core.

  2. The problem being that Trump has shown something is possible that previously was thought impossible. The egoist billionaire running for pres model up till November 2016 was Ross Perot. I.e. spend a fair whack of your fortune and lose by some distance. Trump now has shown, no you don’t even have to outspend a national established party and you can still win. And jeisus if Trump really does keep his business interests, then he’s kicked down a door people thought pretty sturdy but in actual fact was only convention and thus made of balsa. It does mean that you get to answer questions about your business dealings when you should be answering questions about your country dealings though and the space for dodginess is vast so it could do with rehanging and butressing.

  3. Hallowed Be – “And jeisus if Trump really does keep his business interests, then he’s kicked down a door people thought pretty sturdy but in actual fact was only convention and thus made of balsa.”

    But Clinton – Bill this time, not the witch – already showed that. It used to be a foregone conclusion that you could not do drugs and be President. Or dodge the draft. He refused to be all that shamed and it turned out you could be. Obama’s cocaine use – which I think he lied about and – wasn’t even an issue.

    America is proud of their written constitution but it turns out they have an unwritten one too. Like Britain’s it is more or less what the powerful can get away with.

  4. There was no pretence from Trump, he never claimed he would get rid of his businesses or put them in to blind trusts. People knew exactly what they were voting for, much better than the pretence of a charitable foundation.

    Also, I was listening to something last night and usually sensible lefties are now referring to him as far right. The crocodile has been jumped.

  5. His businesses depend on his personal brand though. There’s no way he can disentangle his companies from his image. Gates / Zuckerberg / Bezos simply don’t have that problem.

  6. “His businesses depend on his personal brand though. There’s no way he can disentangle his companies from his image. Gates / Zuckerberg / Bezos simply don’t have that problem.”

    Is it a problem? I’d say its a feature. Because his businesses rests on his brand, it doesn’t matter if he puts them legally aside while he’s President, they will still benefit (or lose out) from his actions as President. Trump being Trump in the White House increases awareness of his brand, regardless of where that brand legally lies at any given moment in time.

    Whereas a Bezos/Zuckerberg etc are actually more required to be there to run the company they created – if they step aside someone else has to do that and might fuck it up. Trump can go on creating/strengthening his brand even when he’s legally entirely disassociated from it.

  7. Selling off a business when must? Is that not a fire sale?
    Putting it in a blind trust? And that removes the capacity to provide the perfect environment for it to grow how?

    What other presidents have done before is nothing to do with this president.

    I’m guessing he is about as well loved as Lincoln was at the time. And look how loved Lincoln is now.

  8. well yes he promised nothing but may find its still worthwhile to blind trust it. Without it he’s answerable now for his business interests,, and he may find it a distraction, and the media may find it a distraction and congress and the public may find it a distraction.

  9. @Tim W,

    This is not primarily about Trump or conflicts of interest, not giving 100% to role as POTUS or all the other claims.

    It’s snobbery: people in trade are not welcome in their club.

  10. Trump got rich then got elected and is therefore unethical.

    The rest of American congressmen, senators and Presidents got elected then got rich and are (allegedly) ethical.

    Huh?

    Obama just rented an 8200 sq foot house in a wealthy section of Washington for an estimated $22,000.00 a month. How the fuck did a “Community Organizer”, part time university lecturer and president with an annual salary of $400,000.00 get that kind of money?

  11. If you’re university educated there’s a good chance you were taught to despise businessmen.
    If you’ve gone straight from university into politics the last thing you want is competent opposition especially if the competence is displayed by a businessman without a degree.
    Most politicians these days are like that.

  12. ‘Many ethics experts’

    Many unnamed ethics experts. Whatever an ethics expert is.

    NYT just blowing smoke.

  13. Hallowed Be said:
    “well yes he promised nothing but may find its still worthwhile to blind trust it. ”

    He can’t blind trust his existing business. The point of a blind trust is that the politician doesn’t know what shares he owns, so that he can’t favour those companies.

    But everyone knows that Trump owns the Trump companies (and even if he did put them in a trust, it would soon be known if the trust had sold them, so until we hear we’d all know that he still had them).

    Which is why, as the original post said, to remove the problem he’s have to sell his businesses first, and then put the money into a blind trust so that he doesn’t know what it’s being reinvested in.

    But that presupposes that there’s a problem with his business interests anyway. As others have said, I’m far more worried about people who make a fortune from politics than I am about those who go into politics with one.

  14. Hallowed Be – “and he may find it a distraction, and the media may find it a distraction and congress and the public may find it a distraction.”

    First class concern trolling there, Be. As if the media wouldn’t whip up as much hysteria as they could over any issue at all. They would simply invent one if they could not find a genuine problem – see the Bush family’s links with Hitler or W’s drug use.

    Trump should ignore them. They are coming with mala fides. Congress is exempt from insider trading laws. Why shouldn’t the White House be as well?

  15. Richard- yes you’re right, he can’t really do it for the business, only for his stock investments. I guess he’ll just have to do it the other way round and declare potential conflicts and if an uninterested decision required have someone else e.g. the VP make it.
    SMFS – yeah well its true lots have their sights on him and will go after the merest of whiffs, but the business stuff does make the target a lot bigger, but as Richard says above he can’t extract himself without selling his life’s work, so he’ll probably just brazen it out and we’ll get to see the tracers.

  16. Hallowed Be – “yeah well its true lots have their sights on him and will go after the merest of whiffs, but the business stuff does make the target a lot bigger”

    No it won’t. They will go after him regardless. There is no point appeasing these people. It just makes it look like they have a point. Trump should get up early, tell them to f**k off, and continue to telling them to f**k off well into the evening.

    What gives these people the idea that they have the slightest moral authority to comment on anyone’s business?

  17. @So Much For Subtlety, December 26, 2016 at 1:59 am

    +1
    They will go after him regardless. There is no point appeasing these people.

  18. Trump never showed much concern about making himself a bigger target HB. The list of things people claimed would stop him was pretty long! Your advice would only lead to people saying “there you go, even he agrees he can’t be trusted”. Showing weakness is not how he got elected

  19. No-one has pointed out, with a large business empire to run, Trump’ll have less time to be presidential. And after Obama, less presidential sounds a distinct advantage.
    As long as he doesn’t get the two confused. Like telling the wrong assistant to reduce exposure to foreign competition. And the guy launching a plan to nuke Beijing.

  20. SMFS,

    I rather rapidly go from argument to *fuck off* with leftists. The minute I sense tribalism, I’m gone. But you do meet people who are wrong, but thinking about it. I’m happy to talk to lefties who will at least think about facts being presented to them.

  21. Bloke in Wiltshire – “I’m happy to talk to lefties who will at least think about facts being presented to them”

    So am I. But I prefer to start them on the obvious questions – “Who the f**k are you to criticise anyone’s ethics? Who died and gave you the right to pose as the moral arbitrator of anything? Why do you think you have any moral standing at all?”

  22. What the fuck is an “ethics expert”. A priest? Or is it a bullshit camouflage for the standard Marxist crap?

  23. An ethics expert (sic) (allegedly) understands ethics. That does not mean they are ethical, though the Libtards want us to think that here. An appeal to authority.

    Their (allegedly) telling Trump how he should manage his business is a prima facie case that they aren’t ethical.

  24. Whose ethics are used? The NYT’s editor’s ethics? Some university part time professor’s ethics? The ethics of some unrelated group? The rather strange ethics found in the bible (look up what can and cannot be done!)?
    Some mythical standard of ethics that is not printed anywhere and that has agreement from no one?

    I’ll accept whatever ethics the entire world agrees on. When they agree on it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.