It's hard to estimate, but some estimate that Trump and his family have made $1.8-$3.5 billion dollars during his first year of his second term.
(Obviously a lot of this depends on how you count. Do you include the on-paper increase in the value of Truth Social since he became President? What about the $400m Boeing donated to the Trump Presidential Library by Qatar?)
But no matter how you count, it seems like the Trump family is doing well. Even Barron, at 19 years old, is now worth $150m!
Do you think Trump and his family are profiting from him being President, or is this just incidental business? And if they're profiting off the Presidency, is that OK?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Trump is an expert at profiting off of branding and fame, which the presidency includes a lot of, so in that sense he's probably making lots of money off the presidency.
I've got no problem with people making money, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal or egregiously unethical.
> egregiously unethical
What makes something egregiously unethical, vs simply unethical to you? What do you feel about things that are simply unethical?
I generally believe it's wrong to force others to do the right thing. I believe in moral absolutism, but just because an action is wrong, that doesn't make it right to deprive another of their free will to do something wrong.
But if something is egregiously immoral or unethical, then force is appropriate. It's kind of a personal, know-it-when-I-see-it kind of line, but hopefully that clarifies my meaning a bit.
What do you think about the anonymous foreign buyers of Trump's crypto coin? When he had a dinner with them at Mar-a-Lago yhe White House refused to release a list of the guests stating Trump was holding the dinner in his private capacity, not as POTUS. Is there anything corrupt about the secrecy and foreign involvement? Can a POTUS still conduct business as a private citizen while also holding office?
I don't have a problem with Trump selling a crypto coin, so unless there's more to the story (and I don't think there is) I don't see a reason to care who the buyers of that coin are.
Not unless there's more to the story.
Yes, it's possible.
Biden was accused of providing some kind of benefit to Russia and/or China due to supposed payments to his son or to himself directly. None of the claims were proven but just the idea of it fueled scandalous stories on Fox News for years.
We know for a fact shadowy anonymous foreigners have given Trump millions of dollars. He has gone out of his way to hide their identities. Why should Americans believe he's not bought and providing benefits to his foreign benefactors?
Everyone is going to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions. It looks like we have lots of evidence that the Bidens received payments from foreign entities.
The only thing we don't have evidence for, judging by the lack of convictions, is that Joe actually sold the power of his office to get that money.
(Individuals are of course going to consider things that the courts wouldn't, like Joe's decision to pardon Hunter unconditionally going back 10 years.)
Some people believe that the Bidens are innocent, that all the money they received was earned for reasons other than influence peddling. Well, good news for those people, the alibi for Trump's money is much more readily available: the foreigners bought crypto currency.
Trump has made billions from crypto and we have no idea who is lining his pockets. He's made unusual moves in the last year, was he paid to invade Venezuela or to threaten Greenland? If he does invade it would trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty. Is he being paid to threaten Cuba, Mexico and Columbia? We dont know who is buying the President who is making more deranged decisions everyday.
You just sound like a conspiracy theorist to me.
Calling things "unusual" and saying "we don't know" isn't evidence of anything.
He didn't run on any of his crazy plans in 2024. He's suddenly wanting to take over the entire hemisphere and we have no clue who is paying him. Literally foreign interests have paid him millions. He's not going through congress. He's clearly corrupt and beholden to someone other than the American people. You're not concerned at all?
What about cases where government policy seems to be for hire?
That's certainly egregious, if true.
The article says "there is no evidence that one deal was explicitly offered in return for the other," but it does succeed in making the Witkoffs look suspicious. It was an interesting read, though I didn't find it very compelling due to the lack of substantial evidence.
I don't know. I figure if it's illegal or violated the emoluments clause or whatever he'll get sured into insolvency. So for me, the proof is in the pudding. Is it too early for pudding?
If he were to get sued and lose would you consider it a just case or would you consider it politically charged?
I'd actually follow it pretty close, particularly discovery. Following, I'd decide based on the evidence. So far I've thought the lawfare has been bunk.
Do you consider his 2 impeachments and 34 felonies to be fair?
What is fair? What a dirty word. Justified on the other hand....
One event spawning multiple felonies by breaking it into a charge per document?
A political process? Politics is a (generally) bloodless pugilistic sport. It is never fair. Damn, I used the F word.
Often, do I consider. I consider considerations of a considered consideration... But I digress.
Have you ever been charged with a crime? I was charged with the crime of underage drinking when I was a kid, my conviction was guilty on one account of minor consumption of alcohol, one count of minor possession of alcohol by consumption, and another charge for being drunk in public. That is how the legal system works. If it's fair for a working class teenage kid in a small town, why isnt it fair for a billionaire?
Yes.
No, that's how our justice system goes after people. It doesn't make it correct. It's not justice. And for what it's worth I'm sorry you were treated that way.
That is how the legal system is broken.
The system used the system to fuck you and the system used the system to fuck Trump. It doesn't make it right. Fair vs Justice. Is it fair or is it just?
How would you like to see the legal system fixed?
Heh, no, pudding is great.
The problem here, such as it is, is that it's not clear anyone has standing to sue under the Emoluments Clause: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/13/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-blumenthal-v-trump/.
So if Congress chooses not to enforce, it looks like the Emoluments Clause might be in some sense a dead letter.
But my question wasn't really whether you think this is legal. (My view is that it's obviously illegal as a matter of law, but obviously doable as a matter of fact.) It's how you feel about it generally.
Do you think Trump has profited off the Presidency?
Jello chocolate from a box or vanilla with bananas mixed in? 🤤
Standing is such an ass reason though. Not a response to you, just... The number of cases that should be heard but tossed for standing is well and truly ass.
I think President Trump keeps a layer of separation between him and his family's investments to provide a layer of plausible deniability. Is there something illegal going on? Probably not in the strictest of senses. Does it paint him in a bad light? Yeah, it does... But I guess I'm used to politicians using their access and knowledge to benefit themselves (Obama?)... Perhaps it's just ennui.
I mean, yes, but I also think that in any democracy, there's a variable-sized gap between "what the rules, Constitution, and norms expect" and "what's enforced." Obviously the size of that gap differs in different countries and eras.
(Also, just to clarify what I wrote before, I only think some of these are illegal emoluments. For example, the Facebook and Alphabet settlements in Trump's lawsuits about having his accounts terminated were entirely meritless--just a way to pay payola--but they aren't illegal emoluments, as the payers are American companies.)
Right, my sense is "probably in some cases, but in many cases, no."
Or LBJ? The guy was one of the richest Presidents upon leaving office.
But LBJ earned in the hundred-million-dollars from shady business; Trump seems to have 10x-ed that. (Also, I think a lot of Trump's self-dealing is just more blatant and less ashamed than other Presidents'.)
Anyway, sounds like we mostly agree, which is always nice. Thanks for the comments!
This is totally fair. I think if perhaps I was less jaded I would agree with you.
I appreciate the non-toxic conversation! It's refreshing! I hope you have an awesome day!
Right back at you. Obligatory question mark?
Wouldn't that be lawfare?
Not if it's justified. Lawfare is using the legal system to unjustly harass, silence or otherwise encumber someone.
Who is going to sue him for violating the constitution to enrich himself? For criminal charges if he did this through official acts the SCOTUS has already ruled he has immunity.
Stripped by impeachment. Follow the process.
Do you think the Republicans would actually impeach him? It took human trafficking (Epstein files) to get a handful of Republicans to turn on trump. What would it take to actually impeach him. Clearly not getting Ukraine to open an investigation on Biden or trying to steal the election. Is it really possible for Republicans to turn on trump?
What about unregulated markets like crypto, where he factually and traceable made tens of millions off his supporters and crypto traders?
This is kind of a moot point, since Bush Jr, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and almost every senator during that time has enriched themselves as a result of holding office. Am I missing something?
I'm not aware of any of them owning businesses that took direct payments from foreign governments during their time in office, and certainly not in what appeared to be a quid pro quo for specific policy changes. Are you?
But I think this is also a lot of whataboutism, isn't it? Do you think this is political corruption? If so, does it bother you? What happened to draining the swamp? Did Trump just replace it with a different, even bigger swamp?
Unfortunately, the article you posted is locked behind a paywall. I agree with you that what I said is whataboutism.
Political note: When Democrats allow the Clintons, Obama and Biden (and family members) to profit immensely during office, they can’t say anything about Trump. Most Trump supporters do not argue that Trump is perfect -just that he was better than all other alternatives
Apolitically: You are right, this is the swamp. It’s pervasive, it corrupts. You could see how frustrated Elon Musk became when he tried to “drain the swamp” with obvious fixes for Social Security and how much resistance there was.
Edit: I did look at the source (like Amazon letting Melania Trump profit $28 million for a documentary deal). Every President wasn't dumb enough to take payments directly. The Clinton's established the Clinton Foundation, etc and found ways to take a lot of money indirectly as did other presidents and senators. Were the Clintons extremely corrupt? Yes. Did they ever do anything technically illegal? No.
Sorry for the paywall. Here are some related stories about this particular incident:
Which all seems like very naked quid pro quos, right?
I think prior administrations have been corrupt to varying degrees, but I'm not aware of any cases equivalent in terms of how blatant it is, how big the values of money are, or in terms of the direct sale of public policy (though the Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is of course quite similar).
Do citizens really have no option but to be resigned to politicians who will sell the office to the highest bidder?
Hi, I apologize, I edited my last comment. Could you check that out also?
Naked Quid Pro Quos indeed - you are correct. Similar to other recent presidents? Also correct.
Your last paragraph/question is the important part. Until it affects election votes or the people vote for changes to stop this type of corruption, it will not change.
Currently, the US is divided and a lot of people don't care about principles. Politics is more of a "team sport". If Obama bombs and regime changes Libya? Crickets from Democrats. If Trump does the same to Venezuela? Outrage from Democrats. Republicans are equally guilty of the same. This attitude of caring about teams rather than principles creates a lot of complacence around corruption -both sides get angry when the other side does it, but is silent when their own side does it.
I think what you say is broadly true. But I do think Trump seems worse on the scale of corruption and the direct selling of government policy. Given that he ran on "draining the swamp", that seems pretty bad?
But I totally agree everyone is far too willing to forgive "their" side. Polarization sucks!
I can see what you mean, but there is a decent bias there in reporting.
The percentage of Democrat-supporting news agencies vs Republican-supporting news agencies is very skewed. You can find it for all of them if you dig.
Hilary and Bill Clinton for example. Being paid millions for “consulting” at investment firms.
To me these actions are equally blatant and equally corrupt. I don’t care if one president made $2 million and the other president made $25 million.
You could argue, “Trump is more corrupt, because he made more on each deal!” Or you could argue, “Hillary and Bill are more corrupt, because they cost less to buy!” I, however, view it as equal corruption.
>If Obama bombs and regime changes Libya? Crickets from Democrats.Â
This is just not true, though. From what I recall, Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat in the House, was vocally critical of Obama's actions and especially the lack of congressional approval. And Al Jazeera, seen as a left-leaning outlet, published several op-eds critiquing Obama's actions in Libya (here's one from Richard Falk).
The response on the left was pretty mixed, as I recall it--and similarly, there were Republicans on both sides of the issue, as well.
Since I have to ask a question: is the weather nice today where you are? I hope it is!
Yeah, I understand you can find at least a couple people opposed to anything. But if you look at the protests for Libya in Democratic states like Minnesota…. There were about 10 people total.
Of course he has profited. His main purpose is to make our country great. He done that on virtually every objective measure
He ended 8 wars
Stock market at record highs
Lower gas prices than under Biden
Lower rate of increase in CPI compared to Biden
Securing our borders
Making our military great again
The adults are back in charge
What makes you think Trump is an adult? Is it the many hours a day he spends on social media attacking anyone he doesn’t like? Or multiple days per week he spends golfing? Is it the way he speaks like a 5th grade bully on the playground?
His main purpose is to make our country great. He’s done that on virtually every objective measure
He ended 8 wars
Stock market at record highs
Lower gas prices than under Biden
Lower rate of increase in CPI compared to Biden
Securing our borders
Making our military great again
The adults are back in charge
Can you name these 8 wars? By my count... only MAYBE two can be considered wars. One of which he is at least partially responsible for starting.
Of course
https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978183959553970220?lang=en
Thank you. Can we go through them? Do you consider all of these to actually be wars or just armed conflicts? I understand there can be some nuance to how you define a war in layman terms versus legal terms. But to you are all of these actual full on wars? How can we say that they are ended, and ended by Trump, when in some his involvement is so little and disputed by those involved. And that some of the conflicts are still going on.
Cambodia / Thailand. Trump's involvement was a phone call in July. After which the Prime Minister of Thailand, the one that Trump had called, insisted on the preference of a bilateral dialogue to end the conflict without U.S. involvement. Delegates of the U.S. did go to their peace deal as did delegates from China. Conflict then broke out after this ceasefire in December.
Kosovo / Serbia. The conflict is still going on.
DRC / Rwanda. The conflict is still going on.
Pakistan / India. India launched an attack on terrorist targets in Pakistan. This lasted 4 days. The U.S. did help facilitate these negations. But this most certainly was not a war. This is literally what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela, and what Trump is saying he will soon be doing in Mexico. So if we are going to say Trump ended this war, then we should also say he has started and is saying he will soon be starting another.
Israel / Iran. Israel attacked Iran due to their creeping goals of nuclear weapons research. There may very well not have been a need for this had the nuclear deal that Trump rescinded during his first term been kept in place. The U.S. direct involvement, and negotiations was absolutely a leading effort though in the cease fire that is currently still in place. I would grant the Trump administration a win on this one.
Egypt / Ethiopia. These two countries were not at war. They were and still are in tense disputes between a river works project up stream. But there has not been violence that can be considered a war or conflict.
Armenia / Azerbaijan. Actually a pretty great thing. The U.S. lead a peace agreement between the two countries. While not fully abiding by the agreement this is absolutely a great step towards peace that we should give the Trump administration credit for.
Israel / Hamas. A lot of good has come from the cease fires that have been put in place. The exchanging of hostages can be seen as a great thing. The ceasefire is still formally in effect the conflict is still on going but at a much reduced rate of violence. Regardless the Trump admin, and those involved, did a good job at implementing this cease fire.
“Armed conflicts”
This sounds like when Kamala said we didn’t have any troops in “active combat zones”.
Meanwhile, our troops (in an active combat zone) made a video laughing at the statement and saying, “then where the fuck are we?”.
Article before the inevitable “WeLl AcTuAlLy” attack.
https://mast.house.gov/2024/9/kamala-doesn-t-know-where-our-troops-are
She's an idiot. I'm glad she wasn't our president. I think this might be something we can agree on, right? But we should be able to know that there is a difference between an armed conflict and a war. We shouldn't be afraid to have nuances in our vocabulary, right?
Would you agree that it's safe to say that America is not at war with Venezuela? However we were just recently a part of an armed conflict with them.
You are welcome for being educated about the 8 wars Trump has ended.
Was one of the 8 wars with Venezuela?
There is not a war between the USA and VZ. President Trump ensured that wont happen.
So you mean he profited in the sense that he made the world a better place for all of us?
That's a sweet sentiment, but what do you think about cases like this one? That seem sa bit different, no?
He profited by having the satisfaction of making the country better than under joe Biden.
What about the $2 billions dollars the Emirati sovereign wealth fund paid into World Liberty Financial prior to Trump's agreement to allow powerful AI chips to be exported to UAE? Or the $2bn that Binance invested in WLF%20and%20Senator%20Elizabeth%20Warren%20(D%2Dmass.)%20alleged%20corruption%2C%20noting%20Binance%20invested%20%242%20billion%20in%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20World%20Liberty%20Financial%20project%20(CRYPTO%3A%20WLFI).) prior to Trump pardoning Binance founder Chengpang Zhao?
Do you think Trump profited from those cases?
Please explain what that has to do with the price of tea in china.
can you do a summary where this is based on according to the article?
the majority is crypto sales from Trump family businesses. Convenient for him that he's guiding crypto policy, no?
Yeah, it's complicated, and like I said, the right value depends a lot on how you count. But I found this link to be the easiest visual explainer.
Hope that helps?