And I didn't include that Satterthwaite quote because whether or not what she says is true is ENTIRELY besides the point when it comes to the emoluments clause. Trump hasn't divorced himself from his business, and his business is currently getting trademarks approved with speed when he previously got denied at every turn. Whether those trademark apps are valid from a business perspective doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that China reversed course on the trademarks once Trump became a potential political figure. Now that he's President, I'm arguing this violates the emoluments clause, whether the trademark apps are appropriate or not....
"Tim didn't write that it was not crazy to think that it "smells". He wrote that it was not crazy to think it "unconstitutional". For it to be unconstitutional, it has to violate some clause in the constitution. So, if not the Emoluments Clause, which one?"
Huh? The whole post is about the emoluments clause. Why are we discussing anything else?
"TD should just honestly state its opinion instead of tap dancing around it ... that is 'the Red Chinese are now bribing Trump'"
Pardon me, scooter, but I did state my opinion clear as day in the original post on this topic, linked above: it's an emoluments violation and China is trying to generate favor with the president by granting him these favors.
This post was a rebuttal to what some said about the first post: it's just one trademark approved after, like, forever! That's not the case any longer, hence the post.
Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
"as long as they are NOT LGBQT xyz what ever... Right? You are being a Hypocrite Tim. and You are my hero on here."
What in the sweet hell are you talking about?!??! I'm someone who has screamed to the sky that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community as loudly as I can. I'm in no way a hypocrite on that topic. I've even written about in these very pages and addressed why I think they should be allowed to do so, specifically back when Mike Pence was mincing around his state thinking he was being Jesus-y....
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
"He/you are already busy ignoring that AdRoll this week broke contract with InfoWars specifically to suppress its political opinions."
Oh, I see: you're a crazy person. A crazy person that doesn't understand what and to whom the First Amendment and free speech protections actually apply. Hint: an ad agency can conduct business with whomever it wants, and it can certainly exclude a bunch of whiny, sycophantic tin-pot wearing conspiracy theorists that cannot even come up with good fake conspiracies and mostly hide under their mother's bed from its customer roll if it so chooses.
And you're here WHINING about that in the name of free speech? Dingus, the business has free speech rights to, and not doing business with your favorite bullshit-peddler is one of them. So you're not only crazy and ignorant, you're a hypocrite to boot. Go away. I'll enjoy my "sinking ship". I'm sure you Ron Paul video to watch or something....
"The left is setting up a dangerous precedent - that a President can only come of a political background."
Uh, not they aren't. They can come from any background they like. They simply can't profit from being in office once they are, which is why the norm is for Presidents to divest of their business or put it in a blind trust so that they know fuck all about what would help them profit or not. And that's a pretty sweet precedent to have set, btw.
You guys keep saying that he's paying a fee to have applied for the trademark as though that mattered. It doesn't. He's receiving something of enormous value from a foreign govt. This isn't nearly as hard as you guys are trying to make it...
Article one regularly refers to other members of government beyond Congress. Article one also, when it wants to make it clear its referring to Congress, uses the specific languge of "The Senators and Representatives", such as:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services"
But if you're wanting for a simple explanation for why the emoluments clause is in Article 1, I would try to satiate you by pointing out that it's likely because Congress is the body that would be able to DO SOMETHING about an emoluments violation, therefore its in the jurisdiction of the body focused on in Article 1.
"Mr masnick, in order for a lie to be effective, a victim cannot realize plot. Please make better next time. There is no Muslim ban. Syria is not predominantly Muslim, and Saudi Arabia with 100% state religion did not even made a cut to list compiled by Obama administration."
Hey, genius, this isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be. For this to be a Muslim ban, it need not ban EVERY Muslim. If the ban is selectively attempting to ban Muslims, even Muslims from a select group of countries, it's still an attempt to specifically ban Muslims.
Which is what this did. The countries banned are predominantly Muslim, and there are preferences carved out once the ban is lifted for non-Muslims. And, since you're a special kind of idiot, Syria IS not just predominantly Muslim, but it's OVERWHELMINGLY Muslim. They don't do census data any more since 1960 because the country can't be bothered to do basic civil services, nevermind actually conduct a fucking census, but at last count it was north of 90% Muslim. Unless you can cite something credible that shows a drastic change from that number, you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
How does this conflict with what I said? Refugee status will be impacted by a religious test, per the text. If you're Christian, you're at the front of the line. If you're Muslim, or Atheist, get to the back.
"I was hoping you would appreciate a different perspective on your writing. I'm starting to think I've offended you somehow. My apologies if that's the case, that was not my intention. "
Meh, I hardly ever manage to take offence at anything, and certainly not that easily, so don't think that.
"The introduction of a series of seemingly irrelevant remarks at the beginning of the story, again however true they may be, set a tone that was reading very hostile to me. Especially when you read later in the story that this issue isn't new or partisan. That the U.S. has a long standing history of arresting journalists."
They. Are. Not. Irrelevant. The point is that the continuation of this treatment of journalists is not only likely to continue under President Trump for the very reasons I stated in the opening, but IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE for those reasons. That was the entire point of how I framed this.
"Intentions aside; The story "read" like Trump was the cause, or at least a major contributor to all this, when really it's been a problem since long before Trump."
If a significant number of people really are reading it that way, despite me, you know, pointing that out exactly within the post itself, then I'll accept responsibility for it. I truly didn't think I had to be so explicit in spelling this stuff out, but perhaps I overestimated some who are reading this post....