Never mind that Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. Just a small detail.

Lawless buffoon....

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/11...-qatar-air-force-one

We'll see if Congress concurs.

trump's not going to care what congress thinks or whether they approve it or not. Watch.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
trump's not going to care what congress thinks or whether they approve it or not. Watch.

Are the toilet handles gold or just plated tungsten? Asking for a friend...

Trump will probably sell it to the Feds for $500 millions and tell you that “makes him smart”.

The funny thing is Trump reportedly will use it as AF1.

The real AF1 is a lot more expensive. Probably also way more survivable. But has less luxury which DJT feels is important.

I have no issue with him accepting it as a gift to the office of the president… even if it ends up as part of the Trump presidential library.

He doesn’t get that any gift to the president is a gift to the nation under law. Of course, he’s used to getting gifts and giving them as a matter of business. We all know he often opens his mouth without regards to reality.

Forget the ethical issues, real or imagined.

Why would any POTUS fly in any aircraft not built from the ground up through a US controlled and vetted process, under the watchful eyes of US DOD technical security and aviation experts?

This brings to memory the US Embassy built by Russian contractors in Moscow during the Cold War. The place was infested with pre-planted listening devices and eventually had to be abandoned if I recall.

If nothing else, this is a sophomoric security issue even the US Secret Service should be able to figure out. Oh, wait. Did I say US Secret Service? Nevermind.

I can't imagine a civilian built plane being up to snuff For AF1. The refit would take years and condition is unknown. Thanks but no thanks

Well, it has to be legal...Pam Bondi, the US AG and a former lobbyist for Qatar, says so. I mean, Bondi was paid $115k per month by Qatar but I'm sure she has analyzed it.
https://www.judiciary.senate.g...conflict-of-interest

Nobody thinks this is a grift. Really....

"ABC News reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ lawyers had determined that the acceptance of the plane was legally permissible if the Qatari government gifts it to the Defense Department and it is later turned over to the Trump Library Foundation."

at first from here i thought what i heard was a joke at least we can laugh everyday on something new...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ne...l&utm_campaign=share

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Plane
Donald Trump is in talks to accept a $400 million gift from Qatar—presumably not simply out of generosity.

The Atlantic
By David A. Graham

May 12, 2025, 6:37 PM ET

Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

Yep, he’s orange jesus alright.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

Cult member mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

Yep, he’s orange jesus alright.

I’m surprised he even needs a plane! He can probably just will himself to be somewhere else, and *POOF*, there he is!
He can apparently will the flight of a golf ball to win him every hole, so he’s well on the way…

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

Yep. There is something relaxing about the idea of "savior". The trust in the outcomes, although saviors work in mysterious ways, stills the soul's anxiety. Believing in a master plan for good, bigger than one's self grants a sort of freedom that man's laws can't.

I don't want to get off the deep end with this, but lets just say philosophy in itself is not the deep end. The real deep end is reserved for religion. Many thoughtful people have studied this, which is a deep dive into human nature.

M. Shy's "savior" comment is a deep dive and invitation.

We have previously thought about "the end justifies the means" (consequentialism) vs the means justifies the end (procedural) The "savior" concept/belief ties into consequentialism.

But let's dive deeper.

Philosophers have invented the word consequentialism. https://iep.utm.edu/consequentialism-utilitarianism/

Excerpt:

Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters. So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well known example of consequentialism.

By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.

Consequentialism is controversial.

Various nonconsequentialist views are that morality is all about doing one’s duty, respecting rights, obeying nature, obeying God, obeying one’s own heart, actualizing one’s own potential, being reasonable, respecting all people, or not interfering with others—no matter the consequences.

========================================================

My point is found in the sentence I highlighted in bold: By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.

John Locke and Kant wrote about the social contract and much more and had great influence on the Founders, especially Jefferson. I knew they were nonconsequentialist but I didn't know there was a word for it - deontological.

So, the secular constitution and the rule of law are deontological. That means it is the direct opposite of the "end justifies the means" which also means directly opposite to consequentialism.

Trumpism and GOPerism are therefore directly opposed to a fundamental Founding principle.

"Savior" belief is actually saving the believer from having to think about what it all means. He can spin the consequences later to mean whatever.

===============================================

Anyway, I know this is probably confusing. So, if you find it interesting, here's a somewhat better explanation:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/consequentialism

Scroll down for: deontological ethics

Excerpt:

By contrast, teleological ethics (also called consequentialist ethics or consequentialism) holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories have been termed formalistic, because their central principle lies in the conformity of an action to some rule or law.

==========================================================

I want to delve into this a bit more.

The rule of law is procedural. It's the means justifies the end. It's deontological. It's secular. It's has a direct lineage from Locke and Kant and Jefferson.

They don't call it "Due Process" for nothing.

So, why is Trump, and the complicit Trumpsters, okay with Wormtongue's comments about suspending habeas corpus?

This whole contest between Trumpism and the judicial branch is about the "savior" syndrome, IOW consequentialism. Let's call it TSS.

They want to skip the procedures and go straight to the consequences they deem appropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems please relax, Trump is a savior, you just don’t know it yet but you will eventually

Hopefully you will remove your head from your ass eventually.

Do I remember reading that some Boeing planes can be controlled from the ground in case of a hijacking?

Why can't trump just travel on the current Air Force One? Is it broken or something?

No gold shitter?

Qatar giving Trump a $400 million aircraft is obscene and a true testament to how screwed up politics has become. It is a moral slap in the face to everyone. There was a time when something like this would have never been attempted, and NEVER accepted if it was.

Absolutely disgusting on so many levels.

Since it would eventually go to his Library committee/foundation it would essentialy be his. How fucked up is THAT? He's just scheming for a free plane.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Since it would eventually go to his Library committee/foundation it would essentialy be his. How fucked up is THAT? He's just scheming for a free plane.

Yep.

Why would a library need a jumbo jet? What would they do with it?

Fly Trump around in style after his presidency, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...nx3?ocid=socialshare

Corruption in plain sight’: Trump’s gulf nation tour shows how little he cares for political norms

This is a follow up of my previous post about consequentialism and "savior":

https://youtube.com/shorts/3re...?si=Olp0keUw52erM4Ye

Miss me with that “both sides” bullsh

https://youtube.com/shorts/WhJ...?si=TG47bu2cwpTooPG6

'So corrupt': Schumer holds Trump's DOJ picks over his luxury jet gift from Qatar

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Qatar giving Trump a $400 million aircraft is obscene and a true testament to how screwed up politics has become. It is a moral slap in the face to everyone. There was a time when something like this would have never been attempted, and NEVER accepted if it was.

Absolutely disgusting on so many levels.

Kelly you do not understand at all it is just a gift ...

a shame that the supporters of the cult of the supreme leader will never see a problem for that or any other things: all is good for them ...

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ai4...?si=bF1XwxC8w_daVZbC

Jon on Trump’s new flying f**k palace from Qatar: I would steam the s**t out of those carpets

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Qatar giving Trump a $400 million aircraft is obscene and a true testament to how screwed up politics has become. It is a moral slap in the face to everyone. There was a time when something like this would have never been attempted, and NEVER accepted if it was.

Absolutely disgusting on so many levels.

Kelly you do not understand at all it is just a gift ...

a shame that the supporters of the cult of the supreme leader will never see a problem for that or any other things: all is good for them ...

Your right Phil...I must get my head out of the past. It's a clown world now.

Can we pause for a moment and let the gravity of this sink in...

The Qatari royal family bankrolls Hamas. This is Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, relative of the man who the US Defense Department has identified as the funder of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks and helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed evade capture for many years.

Now they just bought their way into Trump’s inner circle.

This is the same regime that:

• Finances Hamas
• Was found guilty of bribing hundreds of European Union officials to sway policy in its favor
• Financed 9/11 attacks

And it's not just Trump with his snout in the trough:

• Pam Bondi – Qatar’s registered lobbyist $115,000 per month
• Kash Patel – Security consulting for Qatar
• Eric Trump – Building Qatari-funded golf resorts
• Jared Kushner – Took \$1.5B from Qatari and Emirati funds
• Lee Zeldin – His firm was paid by a Qatari-linked company
• Steve Witkoff – Business ties with Qatari interests
• Barry Bennett & Doug Watts – Secretly lobbied for Qatar
• Joey Allaham – Arranged Qatari meetings with Trump insiders

Qatar doesn’t spend billions for friendship. They don't give 'gifts'.
They invest to control. They've been cited as one of the most corrupt countries on earth, specifically for bribing targets and people it deems necessary to cultivate.

Terror money is still terror. No matter how big the check.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Why would a library need a jumbo jet? What would they do with it?

Fly Trump around in style after his presidency, no doubt.

Why to fly in more copies of “the Art of the Deal” of course..

Btw, if someone says anything about Clinton and a helicopter, it's fake news, didnt happen

And the operating costs , specifically fuel, is OUTRAGEOUS per hour for a 747, though it can take off at nearly a millions pounds.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

You're joking but if trump could manage it, I'm sure he'd have that paint job. Look at what he has done with the Oval Office. I saw the other day that the Saudi's rolled out a purple carpet for him when he arrived in AF1.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0...pet-trump-visit.html

If Trump wants to trust a foreign supplied and maintained aircraft with his rump, fine.

Me? I couldn’t care if the plane is a little older and the creature comforts are a little dated… I’d prefer to fly on the USAF run and maintained plane.

It’s pretty obvious that Trump prefers bling to safety and security.

Yes, I’m unhappy that Boeing is faffing around with delivery of the new aircraft. They should have financial penalties for it (take back executive compensation for the folks who were and are in charge who screwed the pooch, maybe) but that doesn’t mean using the Qatari Royal reject as a replacement.

If the Qatari king is giving the plane away, I suspect he is going to replace it with better… yes, I get that Arab culture is VERY insistent on proper gift giving protocols. I’m not buying that this is a “bribe” given what I know of that culture. I just feel it looks bad, and makes our president (and thus the country) look like freeloaders and would be expected that (culturally) we would reciprocate when they come here.

Maybe Saeed can enlighten us on the nuances of his culture and gift giving… it’s not necessarily bribery for sure, but does set us up to insult the Qatari leadership if we don’t follow protocol afterwards.

Well when you have someone as attached to money as trump is what would you suspect? For that kind of gift I'm sure it's more than simple generousity. I doubt he ever gets to use it in an official manner.

It's a terrible idea and should have been a "thanks but no thanks " rejection. Iirc there's backstory on that plane, in that it wasn't used, like, at all for whatever reason... I suspect that finding out how much it costs, per hour, to fly that pig was a reason...

As far as remember in my last 100 years or so, every world leader gets gifts up to yazoo from every other leader
If gift is plane and Trump wants to fly in it, what’s the big deal?
Gifts are allowed in every political aspect damn near so let’s just relax , shoot some gophers and enjoy coming Summer

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

Phil....that is perfect!

One of my Fiscal Courts is having to readjust their budget due to loss of revenue from DOGE cuts while this Regime would have to eating at least a billion dollars to rebuild a jet.

I know which one is waste.

That is one big deal.

The other big deal is the Constitution does not permit this.

The third big deal is that it appears to be buying the influence of our Chief Executive who serves pursuant to the Constitution as our chief diplomat. Of you cannot see the issues with this you are either willfully ignorant.

The idea that a person should not enrich themselves while in office from the Office goes back to the Articles of Confederation:

N]or shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State.

This was actually an idea taken from the Dutch. The Dutch rule from the Enlightenment forbid their foreign ministers from taking “any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever. This was motivated by a fear of corruption. This new rule was alien to customary international relations.

When the Constitution of 1787 was debated and drafted by the Philadelphia Convention, early drafts had no provision akin to the Articles of Confederation’s Foreign Emoluments Clause. However, towards the end of the Convention, on August 23, 1787, Charles Pinckney “urged the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U. S. independent of external influence,” and he moved to insert a provision closely tracking the language in the Articles. Ultimately, Pinckney’s provision became Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. The provision occasioned little other recorded debate. However, at the Virginia ratifying convention, Governor Edmund Randolph explained:

This restriction was provided to prevent corruption. . . . An accident, which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states.

Text. As explained, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause (also known as the Emoluments Clause, Gifts Clause, Foreign Gifts Clause, and Foreign Titles Clause) was modeled on its Articles of Confederation predecessor. The original Articles of Confederation provision provided:

[N]or shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Whereas the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause now provides:

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [i.e., the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Thus, the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause’s text departed from its Confederation-era predecessor in two distinct ways. First, the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause, unlike its predecessor, expressly permitted Officers . . . under the United States to accept gifts from foreign governments if those officers had the consent of Congress. Some believe that this subclause introduced a substantive change, but others believe that it merely codified the prior practice of the Articles Congress.

That is the big deal.

I doubt Congress is going to let this get over.