Live data from Hacker News

Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

youtube.com

1–10 of 27 posts

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#3
No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal.

The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement.

The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that would stop this.

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#5

No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal. The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement. The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that wou…

There was also the assumption that Congress would do something.

Nixon resigned when he was told that he would likely be impeached. Unfortunately the current Republicans in Congress are completely spineless.

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#6

No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal. The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement. The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that wou…

There was also the assumption that Congress would do something. Nixon resigned when he was told that he would likely be impeached. Unfortunately the current Republicans in Congress are completely spineless.

> There was also the assumption that Congress would do something.

“Checks and balances.”

More like cheques and (bank) balances.

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#7

No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal. The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement. The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that wou…

The framers separated the branches so the legislative, executive, and judicial balance one another. What they didn't account for was all 3 being corrupted at the same time. I've been telling friends we really don't have a defense from this. Even if we held another election the powers that be can run the same playbook again. I'm convinced the US will cease to exist as a democracy in the next 10-15 years.

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#9
We currently witness Suharto levels of self enrichment.

I don't know if he is daytrading now. Every day in the recent week it was "an Iran deal is imminent" during the day and "we'll bomb them" after market closure, followed by Iranian denials that a deal was ever imminent.

Re: Do U.S. Presidents Always Make This Much Money? [video]

#10

No, Trump's administration is straight up criminal. The guy has made ~3500 stock trades in the last 3 months, and there's a pattern of him publicly pumping stock by mentioning a company in a tweet or public statement. The problem is, the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit, so the President is exempt from many criminal laws, including those that wou…

> the framers of the Constitution believed the American people would never elect someone so criminal and unfit

The framers of the Constitution were looking at a different world, where there was not the instant communication and sense of one "America" that we have. They figured that, while attempts at corruption were inevitable, the different states would protect themselves by not allowing representatives from another state to succeed at any self-serving corruption. But the rise of national party instead of state as primary political identity (which Washington warned about), and the huge propaganda pipe that is the internet, have destroyed the (supposed) protection of many individual state identities.

Post reply on HN