Mar-a-Lago can't be a home?

[Rez Exelon]

Perhaps you might do better by obtaining a copy of the actual agreement. With all that we know about Trump, it is very likely that he is exempted from that part of the agreement.

Here, from article 2 of the agreement:

The guest suites as set forth in the Plan shall be limited to the use of Club members, shall be limited to ten (10) in number, shall not be open to the public, and shall not be advertised. No kitchen or other food preparation facilities shall be allowed in any of the guest suites. The use of guest suites shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) non-consecutive seven (7) day periods by any one member during the year. The operations of the Club shall not result in a nuisance to any of the neighboring properties.​

Going by that, it says the guest suites are for members only, and limited to the 21 days. It doesn't make exception for the owner. Assuming that Trump as owner is therefore a member, he would then be limited by that clause. Is this a case of semantics, sure. Which is the point of the thread. Is it legal? And separately, is it right?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Are "guest suites" the same as owner's residence?
Why the question in the first place? As the Queen said, "What difference does it make?"

 

[Slim Deal]

But private quarters are not a residence.

Go fish in a private pond. I have one that 360 ft deep.

 

[RickN]

Are "guest suites" the same as owner's residence?
Why the question in the first place? As the Queen said, "What difference does it make?"

The guest suites are not the same as the owner's private quarters, and the question is because the Democrats know they have been caught in election fraud and want to be able to say "Well Trump did it too."

 

[SMS]

Of all the things to criticize Trump over, this one smells desperate.

I'm sure he has a separate, legal address on the property that qualifies for residency status.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Go fish in a private pond. I have one that 360 ft deep.

Awww, that's very adorable. PM me your address and details, I'd love to get out for a buddy day.

Of all the things to criticize Trump over, this one smells desperate.

I'm sure he has a separate, legal address on the property that qualifies for residency status.

Actually no, there is no other address on the property. The entire estate (one of the top 20 largest in the country even) is one specific address and the agreement with the city converted the entire estate into Mar-a-Lago. In the agreement (which is public and available for reading) it does not permit any permanent residency. Rather than being "sure" it might be worth it to look it up.

The guest suites are not the same as the owner's private quarters, and the question is because the Democrats know they have been caught in election fraud and want to be able to say "Well Trump did it too."

From my point above, the use agreement specifies no owners quarters.

Here's the reason it matters --- and it's not got a damn thing to do with the Democrats. The reason is that if the GOP wants to be the party of LAW and order, then it should follow the law. If it wants to be the party of MORALS then it should endeavor to do what's right. If it wants to be the party of JUSTICE then it should hold it's own to account. One thing I've seen on this board over and over, is that there seems to be a pervasive attitude of "well they did it" being a justification. Well, two wrongs don't make a right. Call me crazy, but I remember when the GOP wanted to attract and retain voters by being BETTER than the other party, now I've got people like Slim Deal up there sending threats because I would dare to question the person that is the leader of the party because their actions might not have been beyond reproach.

If the party's leader is not beyond reproach in this small case (see SMS's comment about "of all the things...." to indicate how small this is) could we assume that his actions are not beyond reproach in larger ones? For those that believe in Jesus, the Biblical concept is to "avoid all appearance of evil". This isn't a party thing --- some of us believe that ALL politicians are pieces of crap and that they ALL need to be held to account. So the substance of the question is seeking to answer "is this right" and "is this legal". It's not even asking "what should be done" based on the answer to either of those. However, the entertainment value of the thread, for me, is seeing that people are either:

A) Not answering the question and spewing BS about motivations, party this, Democrat that.
B) Answering, but not because of any evaluation about facts.
C) Providing actual theories (this is my favorite one).
D) Tacitly admitting its fraud but saying "who cares".

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Wow, I guess we have been set straight!

 

[Rez Exelon]

Wow, I guess we have been set straight!

You're as funny as you are sarcastic but this isn't a hearts and minds thread cupcake.

 

[Blue Heeler]

This thread is kind of like “The View” with peope whining about Trump and where he is going to live.

 

[Louro]

So I see you are doing what a lot of people are. Assuming that people don't care about other voter fraud. For my part, no where in this thread have I said I don't care about it. In real life I believe it should be handled as well. But that's not the question here. The question here, is if what Trump did was legal, and you skirted it and didn't answer it with all the quality of a made in China answer.

u
No enough concerns to ask a question about it. But enough concer to ask a question about one person. TDS is hard to live with it.