Kicking Trump Is Good For Business

“Vanity Fair has had the last laugh after President-elect Donald Trump blasted the magazine over a snooty review of one of his restaurants: its subscription numbers have broken a company record.”
 
See Trump anger smashes Vanity Fair’s subscription record
Chuckle. Trump blasting a business is good for business. Customers come out of the woodwork because half the country hates him and wants to do something to retaliate. It’s all good. Perhaps Trump will learn to shut his Trap but for now his sleeplessness is good for business. Too bad he’s not interested in doing what’s best for USA, good governing.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Kicking Trump Is Good For Business

  1. kurkosdr wrote, “Owning property in a country is the same as receiving millions of dollars in donations from the local regime”.

    It certainly is. In Saudi Arabia, the royals run everything. Nothing happens without their approval. So, yes, Trump is taking Saudi royal money. It all comes from oil. Just one royal, of which there are thousands, staying one night at a Trumpish hotel is a violation of the “emoluments” clause of the USAian constitution.

  2. kurkosdr says:

    “is listed as president and owner of companies called THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor and DT Jeddah Technical Services Advisor. These are thought to be related to a possible hotel development.”

    Owning property in a country is the same as receiving millions of dollars in donations from the local regime. QED?

  3. kurkosdr wrote, “the big corporation doesn’t have a proven conflict of interest that involves Saudi Arabia”.

    (Trump) “is listed as president and owner of companies called THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor and DT Jeddah Technical Services Advisor. These are thought to be related to a possible hotel development.”

    So, he’s likely getting ~$100 million or so from the Saudis while Clinton’s charity took in ~$1 million. QED

    Further, Trump is involved in dozens of countries where he’s tied into governments, not just businesses. Clinton just gave her name to her charity and didn’t have much to do with running it.

  4. kurkosdr says:

    You can’t compare a medium-sized charitable non-profit with a multi-billion dollar global corporation when it comes to conflict of interest and/or corruption.

    Yes you can if the poor little charity has a proven conflict of interest that involves Saudi Arabia, and the big corporation doesn’t have a proven conflict of interest that involves Saudi Arabia. Because you know, you don’t want the US’s middle east policy to be influenced (by donations of millions of dollars) by the most Salafi and most fundamental regime in the region.

  5. kurkosdr says:

    (Example: Obama saying he would withdraw the US from Middle Eastern wars, instead he enlarged them.)

    That can be a case of Saudi Arabia “cashing the checks” they gave to the Dems and Hilary Clinton (hint: private vs public agenda, the Dems can pretend they are the biggest proponents of peace and pulling out of the middle east as part of their public agenda, but it is the private agenda -aka the donor money- that matters).

    Both Lybia and Syria (countries the US intevened on during Hilary’s presidency, both directly in the case of Libya and indirectly in the case of Syria by supplying “rebels” and “fighters”) eventually become partly an ISIS and Al-Nusra stronghold, aka organizations that Saudi Arabia supports. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Also, I don’t think there is a coincidence the US pulled out of Iraq literally some months before the Iraqi air-force received the F-16s they had ordered (from the US) that would enable them to battle ISIS better, during Hilary’s time as secretary.

    The question, of course, is whether the US knew the unfortunate effects their interventions will have on peace on the middle east and the spread of ISIS, or they were just blindly complicit.

  6. kurkosdr wrote, “Trump can’t be much worse than the other candidate, Clinton, who received millions of dollars from Wall-Street banks and Saudi Arabia”.

    Facts not in evidence… Trump is demonstrably worse. You can’t compare a medium-sized charitable non-profit with a multi-billion dollar global corporation when it comes to conflict of interest and/or corruption. Whatever corruption Clinton could imagine, Trump can do 100 times better/worse.

  7. kurkosdr says:

    Fact is, we really have no idea what Trump is going to do. If he is true to form for US Presidents, he will do the exact opposite of what he campaigned for. (Example: Obama saying he would withdraw the US from Middle Eastern wars, instead he enlarged them.)

    At least Trump doesn’t belong to a party that openly admits that “it is neccessary there is a public agenda (aka what the people want) and a private agenda (aka what the donor’s want), like the Dem party has admitted, and Trump isn’t bought and sold by Wall-Street and Saudi Arabia (again you are welcome to provide credible evidence to the contrary), so there is a chance the effect will be less pronounced.

  8. ram says:

    Fact is, we really have no idea what Trump is going to do. If he is true to form for US Presidents, he will do the exact opposite of what he campaigned for. (Example: Obama saying he would withdraw the US from Middle Eastern wars, instead he enlarged them.)

  9. kurkosdr says:

    during his campaign or chance = during his campaign

  10. kurkosdr says:

    You do realise that Trump won the election, even with California sabotaging the election by allowing illegals to vote without an ID. One of the reasons other republican candidates wouldn’t touch the thorny “illegal immigrants” issue (despite the fact those immigrants are in the US illegally and every candidate is supposed to promise he will respect the rule of law during his campaign or chance) is because those illegals vote.

    BTW, why didn’t Obama legalize all those illegal immigrants during his first two years (2008-2010) when he had total freedom to do so. Is it because the Dem establishment wants those voters to be bound to the Dem party? (which is perceived as more illegal-immigrant friendly than the Republicans). It is this kind of double-faced-ness “yes we are with illegal immigrants but won’t legalise them” that people hate in politicians, and the reaosn Trump won (who has a clear stance on the matter).

    Anywho, Trump can’t be much worse than the other candidate, Clinton, who received millions of dollars from Wall-Street banks and Saudi Arabia, for what knows what kind of favors as an exchange. Unless you believe Saudi Arabia and Wall-Street banks gave money to Hilary’s “charity” out of their good heart, and also after the election massively scaled back their donations (despite the fact Hilary now has much more time to devote to charity), because of … reasons.

    At least Trump isn’t bought and sold by Saudi Arabia and Wall-Street banks (but you are welcome to try and prove the opposite with credible evidence, like the evidence that exists against Clinton).

  11. dougman wrote, “With the Canadian economy retracting, and Trudeau popularity waning, sounds like its all going to the dogs.”

    Not here. Even the weather is having a warm streak. However, a damned hare did take up residence in my yard mowing down an apricot and trimming the lower branches of cedars. I’m going to dig him out of his snowbank and try to drive him off today.

    Meanwhile, Canadian stocks were up while USAian stocks were down on Friday and Canada’s GDP per capita was at an all-time high

  12. dougman says:

    Not computer related Robert.

    With the Canadian economy retracting, and Trudeau popularity waning, sounds like its all going to the dogs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r73fGh7iv9Y

Leave a Reply