CDZ UK Parliament Debates Trump Ban

[Flopper]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

 

[MisterBeale]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

It's not that they don't care, it's that they are like Obama supporters.

They just don't think. They are feeling.

They aren't being reasonable. They aren't looking at Trump's history. He's the deal maker. He's making a deal with them. I think he is getting the better end of the deal . . . . .

 

[FA_Q2]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

Actually I think that the point was it was a direct lie. But don't let that stop you.

 

[jasonnfree]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

No, Trump just thinks people should come here legally. Wonder where he got that cockamamie idea anyway.

 

[Flopper]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

No, Trump just thinks people should come here legally. Wonder where he got that cockamamie idea anyway.

Trump just thinks people should come here legally, provided they aren't Muslims.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump just thinks people should come here legally, provided they aren't Muslims.

Are you suggesting, or saying expressly, that he thinks that Muslims should come here illegally? Your comment certainly leaves that as one of the things he might think.

 

[320 Years of History]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

 

[jasonnfree]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Trump supporters just doubt care. They think we can build a wall around the US and we we won't need other countries like the UK or China, Mexico, or the Middle Eastern countries.

No, Trump just thinks people should come here legally. Wonder where he got that cockamamie idea anyway.

Trump just thinks people should come here legally, provided they aren't Muslims.

\
With what's happening in Europe and other countries with their Muslim immigrants? They seem to cause trouble wherever they go. It's a matter of public safety, which is one of the prime purposes of having a government. Immigration at this time doesn't help our country anyway, with our unemployment and budget problems. Besides, immigration should be about helping America and it's citizens, not about what's best for people who want to come here. Let Islam take care of it's own. Plenty of muslim billionaires in the middle east. Time for them to help out by taking immigrants into their own countries. I say Trump is totally correct on this issues as well as talking against our disastrous trade policies. I hope he becomes our next president.

 

[jasonnfree]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

 

[Flopper]

Trump just thinks people should come here legally, provided they aren't Muslims.

Are you suggesting, or saying expressly, that he thinks that Muslims should come here illegally? Your comment certainly leaves that as one of the things he might think.

Of course not. Trump comments about Africans, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, etc makes it pretty clear he doesn't want them coming into the country, legally or illegally. Trump's core element in attracting supporters isn't just his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or his un-PC pomposity but his promise of radical isolationism. He's tapped into a large segment of the population who see the source of all of America's problem as being external. They believe the solution to America's problems is building walls around the US both real and figuratively.

 

[Flopper]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

 

[320 Years of History]

...Trump's core element in attracting supporters isn't just his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or his un-PC pomposity but his promise of radical isolationism. He's tapped into a large segment of the population who see the source of all of America's problem as being external. They believe the solution to America's problems is building walls around the US both real and figuratively.

I wonder if that be the same segment of the population that, as individuals, blames all (or nearly all) their woes on something other than their own mistakes and shortcomings?

 

[Flopper]

...Trump's core element in attracting supporters isn't just his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or his un-PC pomposity but his promise of radical isolationism. He's tapped into a large segment of the population who see the source of all of America's problem as being external. They believe the solution to America's problems is building walls around the US both real and figuratively.

I wonder if that be the same segment of the population that, as individuals, blames all (or nearly all) their woes on something other than their own mistakes and shortcomings?

In general, yes. Trump gives them a scapegoat, Muslims, Illegal immigrants, or Blacks. Get rid of them and you get rid of the problem or as Trump says, " trust me, it will be fast and easy". Hitler had his Jews, Mussolini had his communists, the Romans had their Christians, and Trump has his scapegoats.

 

[320 Years of History]

...Trump's core element in attracting supporters isn't just his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or his un-PC pomposity but his promise of radical isolationism. He's tapped into a large segment of the population who see the source of all of America's problem as being external. They believe the solution to America's problems is building walls around the US both real and figuratively.

I wonder if that be the same segment of the population that, as individuals, blames all (or nearly all) their woes on something other than their own mistakes and shortcomings?

In general, yes. Trump gives them a scapegoat, Muslims, Illegal immigrants, or Blacks. Get rid of them and you get rid of the problem or as Trump says, " trust me, it will be fast and easy". Hitler had his Jews, Mussolini had his communists, the Romans had their Christians, and Trump has his scapegoats.

Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.
― Ziad K. Abdelnour, Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics​

I think what you meant is that Mr. Trump serves as their legitimizer, not their scapegoat. The blacks, Muslims and immigrants are their scapegoats. Much as Mr. Trump palliates them and makes them think their foolishness makes some damn sense, wiser heads know better, thus we see the intelligentsia in the Republican party finally unified in opposition to Mr. Trump's candidacy's success.

Now I don't think that one need be any great intellectual to see the follow of Mr. Trump's proposals, but one does have to be intelligent to do so.

The person who [speaks] for fools is always sure of a large audience.
― Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue and Other Essays​

 

[FA_Q2]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

 

[jasonnfree]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

My situation was hispanics in my neighborhood, so I said hispanics. If they had been russians, I would have said russians. If your neighborhood turned Hispanic and you had to either move or get an alarm system, security fences, and weapons, would you call yourself a racist? I'm talking central orange county, california. It has been heavily colonized mostly by hispanics, mostly illegal, and the hispanic gang problem has intensified tremendously the last 30-40 years. In neighborhoods with houses worth 6-700k, you can still hear gunfire on some nights. I say it's not racism same as it's not racism to not want tens of thousands of muslim refugees coming here. Obama has armed security, he doesn't have to worry. bill and hillary have armed secret service protection as well as living in chappaqua, new york, probably not a destination for young muslim male refugees for whom we know nothing about. Many ex dems will vote Trump for these reasons. Also how he speaks out on the shitty trade deals that bill and barack and all republican politicians have used to de industrialize this country, costing millions of working class americans, blacks as well whites, their decent paying jobs with benefits. It's not racism, I say, and I don't think Trump is one either.

 

[Flopper]

...Trump's core element in attracting supporters isn't just his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or his un-PC pomposity but his promise of radical isolationism. He's tapped into a large segment of the population who see the source of all of America's problem as being external. They believe the solution to America's problems is building walls around the US both real and figuratively.

I wonder if that be the same segment of the population that, as individuals, blames all (or nearly all) their woes on something other than their own mistakes and shortcomings?

In general, yes. Trump gives them a scapegoat, Muslims, Illegal immigrants, or Blacks. Get rid of them and you get rid of the problem or as Trump says, " trust me, it will be fast and easy". Hitler had his Jews, Mussolini had his communists, the Romans had their Christians, and Trump has his scapegoats.

Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.
― Ziad K. Abdelnour, Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics​

I think what you meant is that Mr. Trump serves as their legitimizer, not their scapegoat. The blacks, Muslims and immigrants are their scapegoats. Much as Mr. Trump palliates them and makes them think their foolishness makes some damn sense, wiser heads know better, thus we see the intelligentsia in the Republican party finally unified in opposition to Mr. Trump's candidacy's success.

Now I don't think that one need be any great intellectual to see the follow of Mr. Trump's proposals, but one does have to be intelligent to do so.

The person who [speaks] for fools is always sure of a large audience.
― Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue and Other Essays​

Anyone with an IQ above 70 should be able to see Trump for what he is, a skilled huckster trying to sell the public on the idea that all the country needs is a president with the courage to kick ass.

 

[Flopper]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

 

[Flopper]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

My situation was hispanics in my neighborhood, so I said hispanics. If they had been russians, I would have said russians. If your neighborhood turned Hispanic and you had to either move or get an alarm system, security fences, and weapons, would you call yourself a racist? I'm talking central orange county, california. It has been heavily colonized mostly by hispanics, mostly illegal, and the hispanic gang problem has intensified tremendously the last 30-40 years. In neighborhoods with houses worth 6-700k, you can still hear gunfire on some nights. I say it's not racism same as it's not racism to not want tens of thousands of muslim refugees coming here. Obama has armed security, he doesn't have to worry. bill and hillary have armed secret service protection as well as living in chappaqua, new york, probably not a destination for young muslim male refugees for whom we know nothing about. Many ex dems will vote Trump for these reasons. Also how he speaks out on the shitty trade deals that bill and barack and all republican politicians have used to de industrialize this country, costing millions of working class americans, blacks as well whites, their decent paying jobs with benefits. It's not racism, I say, and I don't think Trump is one either.

If you believe that Hispanics or Blacks are inferior to Whites, then you are a racist because that's the definition. Just moving out of a dangerous neighborhood that happens to be mostly Black or Hispanic does not make you a racist. However, moving out of a neighborhood for no reason other than it is Hispanic or Black, does make you racist.

I think we overuse the word racist when we really mean bigot.

 

[320 Years of History]

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

My answer to your question is "no." It's no because upon assuming that office, Mr. Trump would have to step away from managing anything having to do with managing Trump Organization were he to become President, and his UK ventures along with every other venture in Trump Organization would have to survive without his attention anyway, regardless of whether he can set foot into the UK.

That raises a whole new question. Just what would Mr. Trump do with Trump Organization? It's a business held by himself and his immediate family members. Well before taking office, Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farming business into a blind trust. Presumably Mr. Trump would do the same, but the reality is that he isn't absolutely required to do so unless so instructed by the head of the government's office of ethics.

"It should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation."​

That said, for certain individuals, the President among them, there is a requirement that they disqualify themselves:

The principal federal conflict of interest law provides that an official who administers federal law should not take any official action on, or make recommendations concerning any particular governmental matter in which that official, or one closely associated with the official, has a personal “financial interest.” That is, federal officials in the executive branch of Government, other than the President or Vice President, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their spouse, dependant children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a financial interest. Executive branch officials may also be required, under regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics, to recuse themselves from certain governmental matters affecting an even broader category of persons or entities with whom they have a “covered relationship."​

There is also the matter of "independence," which is not really a layman's topic, and I'd just as soon not get into a debate about the intricacies of establishing and ensuring independence. As a long time member of the AICPA, I'm quite well versed on the theory and application of the concept. In general, independence is this:

Independence is defined as follows:

1. Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform an attest service without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
2. Independence in appearance is the avoidance of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party, who has knowledge of all relevant information, including safeguards applied, to reasonably conclude that the integrity, objectivity, or professional skepticism of a firm or member of the attest engagement team is compromised.

This definition should not be interpreted as an absolute. For example, the phrase “without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment” is not intended to convey that one must be free of all influences that might compromise objective judgment. Instead, one must determine whether such influences, if present, create a threat that is not at an acceptable level that one would not act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism in the conduct of a particular engagement or would be perceived as not being able to do so by a reasonable and informed third party with knowledge of all relevant information. This definition reflects the long-standing integrity requirement that when/where independence is required, one be independent both in fact (that is, of mind) and in appearance.​

Given the very wide breadth of Mr. Trump's business ventures (global and across multiple industries) and the very closely held nature of his company, it's hard to imagine how he could achieve achieve independence from it and without conflict of interest conduct affairs of state, be they foreign or domestic in nature. As President, he's certainly not going to stop talking with his wife and children, the other owners of Trump Organization, and he's certainly not going to forget what specific ventures the business engaged in or had "in the hopper" at the time he might assume the Presidency. And whether you like the prospect of his becoming Preside or don't welcome that potentiality's coming to be, nobody can deny the man's character is first and foremost "all about" one thing: Donald Trump's winning.

Just as a simple example....If Mr. Trump as President had to spend a night in NYC, do you think he and his entourage would stay at a Trump property or a competitor's property? That's just a very straightforward example, there are plenty that are far less direct, far more complicated, and far less readily identified. The key thing in my mind is that Mr. Trump has shown by his past and current dealings that winning is more important to him than is "doing the right thing." That's just not a quality I want in a President, or any public official for that matter. At the very least, seeing as I know everyone has that trait to some degree, I don't want a President in whom that trait appears to predominate and drive his decision making.