Trump Business Plan
Donald Trump has finally released his plans for his business empire. Trump announced that he would turn over complete control to his sons as well as divert any foreign hotel revenue earned into the US Treasury.
Trump was quoted as saying:
Over the weekend I was offered $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai with an amazing developer in the Middle East, I turned it down. I didn’t have to turn it down, but as you know I have a conflict situation as president.
The Trump administration would also no longer negotiate foreign deals for his business entities and would appoint an "ethics" adviser to keep track of potential conflicts of interests.
What do you think of this plan? Is it enough of a "blind trust" to be sufficient in dealing with potential conflicts of interest?
This is not at all what a "blind trust" implies - in a true blind trust, your assets are sold and the proceeds are controlled by an unaffiliated third party. While acknowledging that Trump's situation is a bit more unique than we have seen with previous presidents, I don't think handing off your business assets to your children is removing yourself far enough so as to ensure total removal of possible conflicts of interest, and I'd be having the same sentiment whether we had elected a Democrat or a Republican, for that matter. Just imagine the outrage certain people would have if Hillary had won, and announced she was appointing her daughter to take over all her business interests so as to avoid an obvious "conflict of interest". I believe one of the greatest issues facing our society right now is that a lot of people are willing to give blind faith approval to our leader on a number of issues without taking a step back and trying to view certain actions or statements objectively. We're at a point in time where our leader is refusing to answer questions during press conferences from major media outlets, including the first 24-hour news coverage station (CNN) in favor of Brietbart. All of a sudden it's okay to push the president to release his long-form birth certificate, but releasing tax returns is going way too far and not at all what the American people want. I'd hope that at some point, people start realizing this behavior is not to be tolerated, because you're setting a precedent that any president can act this way - think about how it'd be in 4 years if a Democrat gets elected and starts behaving in a similar manner...this should be a bipartisan issue, for the sake of all of us.
Re: the CNN thing
CNN put out a story that was first published by Buzz feed about some unchecked, unverified report that countless news agencies passed on about Putin having a video of Trump paying prostitutes pissing on a bed Obama once slept in. I am sorry, but CNN is garbage and below Breibart. I hope he revokes their press credentials.
Obama was pushed like people are pushing Trump. The difference is being a natural born US citizen is a requirement for being President and releasing your taxes is not.
You know what behavior shouldn't be tolerated? A sitting President campaigning against another candidate. Or a sitting First Lady talking shit about the elected new President. Or collusion between major "news" networks and the Democrat candidate.
As for Trump, it is unrealistic to expect him to sell his business or not give it to his family. It is a unique situation for sure. I am worried far less with Trump making money than I am about the economy, fixing Obamacare, new Supreme Court justices, etc.
This is astonishing. You disregarded the second half of my statement which was "in favor of Brietbart" and just started knocking on CNN for how much you hate them. This shouldn't be a discussion about CNN, not was it at all intending to be.
Let me rephrase, so you believe that CNN should have press credentials revoked over what they published, and shouldn't have their questions answered by the president elect, but it's completely fair and alright for him to field a question from Brietbart, a "news" organization responsible for pushing #pizzagate. What an interesting viewpoint to hold.
This is glorious. If you're going to hold yourself to believing in certain standards you deem appropriate, they should at least be consistent.
This difference is, liberal Democrat politicians don't earn their money in business; they are given their money through lucrative, unprofitable (for the publisher) book deals, speeches, and for putting their name on a law firm's resume.
I don't know what this is refuting. My use of the word business? I was wrapping up non-profit initiatives within that scope as well; replace it with Chelsea Clinton running anything and everything she ever put her name on, for that matter, if it makes you feel better.
"They're under audit by the IRS"
1.) his plan is a joke 2.) congress should extend all conflict of interest laws to both the president and the vp, no clue why they're exempt 3.) congress should pass a law that requires confirmed presidential candidates to release their tax returns, idk why he hasn't released them but it is getting shadier and shadier. 4.) check out this hilarious quote from his clown show: "I will be the greatest jobs producer that God ever created". How humble & realistic.
p.s. edited the quote for accuracy
Number 4) seems right out of Kim Jong-un's mouth, honestly can't believe this is the type of stuff coming from our president
I agree with the spirit of your argument that POTUS from the private sector should have no involvement in their empires while in office.
out of curiosity, and not because I'm a fanboy, what do you hope to glean from trump's tax returns? from a practical standpoint, what would it prove? if they show his businesses aren't that profitable, so what? if it shows he doesn't pay a lot in taxes, so what? if he's doing something illegal, that's another story, but I doubt that'd show up on his tax returns.
are you trying to catch him in hypocrisy? like if he demonizes wall street but then has all his money with goldman, what does that tell you?
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, because I don't particularly care about the personal finances of POTUS, so long as there aren't conflicts of interest while in office
No clue what is in his returns. I think if it were a simple "his effective tax rate is close to zero" he'd have released them by now. I am genuinely concerned that he isn't releasing them for some unsavory reason or another. No idea what. Never cared about it before but it used to just be ho-hum. Release and examine, maybe in the news cycle for a few days if something pops. The idea that he has extended the tax return story for months now with no foreseeable benefit to doing so makes me think there is more to worry about than the ho-hum. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but my speculation only exists because he allows it to.
Heard that quote live, straight from the horse's mouth. Can confirm it's not fake news.
Want some cheese with that whine? Fucking baby.
Trumps business plan is great and right out of the Republican hand book. Lower taxes, lower regulation, pro business administration with a focus on bringing real jobs back the to US.
He's putting his real estate business into a blind trust and he's focusing on being president. Dudes 70, very wealthy and this is the apex of his legacy. How exactly is he supposed to do more than he is? Liquidate his business? Get real.
All this carping about conflict of interest is just belly aching from the left. Hillary had no problem with her foundation and getting paid to speak at big banks. It was a "witch hunt" when Republicans made a fuss about foreign donations to the foundation.
Congress should do that stuff, but they haven't. So move on. Trumps taxes are complex and will show him to be poorer than he says. The taxes were used against Romney to show his wealth and were to be used against trump to make him look poor.
Trumps already creating jobs, something clownbama couldn't do.
I'll let you get back to finding racism in your bowl of cheerios.
A respected member of this site has gone full troll, truly dumbfounding.
Eric "TNA" Trump with yet another insightful post. Dude def rolls around with a "NOBama" and a "Hillary 4 Prison!" bumper sticker on his Volkswagen.
Cool post. We should have elected Hillary. I'm sure her antagonize and demonizing Russia would have been great. New taxes and regulations, as well as keeping Obamacare would have been amazing for the economy and job front.
Market seems to be optimistic about Trump. Considering a rate hike didn't slow the market down business seems optimistic about our new President.
Ahhh, I forgot. Trumps literally Hitler. Literally the devil. My bad.
Cmon man. I don't agree with a lot of what Trump does, but I'm at the level where I've graduated from college - I come on this site to learn and give advice to incoming students and share in some debate back and forth - honestly to open my eyes and learn something myself.
You're a mid-20s/30s working professional calling people "fucking babies" on the internet and dismissing every criticism anyone holds to the candidate you voted for. Grow up.
It's called having a discussion. People disagree. I'm mobile, but when I have time I'll post the job stats. Plain fact is Trump got elected and there has been an endless stream of topics that just boil down to shitting on trump and brining up minutia.
Should he release his taxes? Sure. Do I expect the left to shut up once they are released? Absolutely not.
As for this Russia shit, I am so over it. It was a created story to deflect from the damaging content of the DNC and Podesta emails. There has been zero proof and I've read through both reports.
Jobs created under Obama have been part time or low paying service jobs. This is a structural shift, but also indicative of him not focusing on the economy. His stimulus was largely ineffective and we have one of the lowest labor force participation in recent history. If you look at the components of GDP, our growth has been fueled through govt spending and consumer debt. Not healthy GDP.
There's a reason why Sanders and trump did as well as they did and it's because people are hurting.
Furthermore, I've had similar discussions with the same people over the course of this election. I shut my mouth in the beginning, but they trump trashing got too much. This discussion is not in a vacuum. People are making Trump threads every other day and the same misinformation is repeated day in and day out.
Data -
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/
11MM jobs were created during Obama. 47% were "high paying". Almost all were in the service industry, with about half being in retail, restaurant services and admin.
Labor Force Participation
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
I went back to 1980. Lowest levels in 36 years. It declined steadily while Obama was in office. This is why the unemployment rate declined.
Disability
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html#2
Significant and sustained increase in people filing for disability. The definition was loosened and this is reflective of a depressed labor market.
National Debt - Doubled.
Stock market has rebounded through QE, not real growth.
So this is my data and issue with Obama.
As for Trumps business plan, I am fine with what he is doing. He has a family and a business. This is the issues that happen when you elect a business man. Hillary was fine with her foundation and Bill getting huge speaker fees. The outcry is hypocritical.
As far as Trump being the best jobs President, he saved the jobs at Carrier, Ford is building a new plant, SoftBank has announcing large investments, Alibaba is talking about large investments. Trump isn't even in office.
I think Obama could have done everything Trump is doing. The difference is Obama didn't focus on creating jobs, cutting taxes, reducing regulation or strong arming American companies to hire Americans. He focused on Obamacare (which is a disaster) and raising taxes. He's added endless regulation and selected a cabinet that works against business.
IMO, I should have to post this information as people should know this. This is the basic workings of the US economy. Talking about the unemployment rate and new jobs without knowing what kind of jobs is the shit you read on CNN or some trash local paper. All this information is on the BLS and other government sites for everyone to look at. But here it is now.
The liberals would have much preferred coronationing Hillary. Trump was a billionaire before he ran for President. The Clintons were working on becoming billionaires through peddling influence through all of the various stints in high political office they've had.
Is Trump politically correct? No. He was the best realistic option we had.
Honestly, does any of this REALLY matter? Once you become POTUS, you are going to have a very very good life. You will be protected, you will make great money, and you will always be seen as someone who had a tremendous career (albeit, that viewpoint will fluctuate depending on an individual's political line).
Probably 90% of the stuff the public / media argues about is fluff. It is completely irrelevant no matter how morally and ethically correct or incorrect the processes are. The reality is that we will never see or maybe never fully understand the true personal outcomes (positive or negative) the workings of the POTUS has for the office and cabinet.
That being said, I wouldn't want someone diabolical and purely self interested as POTUS. I agree with TNA when he says that Trump is more so doing this for his legacy, but I don't doubt for a second that he is also doing this to further enrich the lives of his children. I am a fan of the basic philosophy of Trump's 4 years in office, which is pro-business.
Steam, what is your biggest concern about Russia? You really think Russia is the biggest problem (sorry if I read some of your responses wrong)? You'd be blown away if you saw some of the capabilities we are selling to certain mid-east countries. It's a joke. I'm sure we all agree the country is shady and does things that are flat out not ok. Trump more than likely has business there, but if you take the words of any politician to heart I would say you are a dumb dumb :P . Trump speaks out of his ass more than half of Hollywood so I always find it enjoyable when die-hard liberals have a full blown anxiety attack over something he says (not saying this is you by any means). End of the day, you will never get a 100% truthful statement from the Donald, but you can sure as hell bet that 27% of what he says he really believes.... no matter how bat shit crazy it is.
Back on the topic: the director of the federal office of government ethics has (predictably) blasted Trump's conflict-of-interest plan. As an aside, General Mattis disagreed with Trump's stated views on pretty much every foreign policy topic during his confirmation hearing.
I bet you're tittering with glee.
He disagreed with Trump on Russia and Iran. Hardly everything. Mattis is a hammer and sees nothing but nails. NATO should be disbanded or the US should leave it. It served its purpose and now it's done with. As for Iran, we have every right to reevaluate their behavior. Once they go nuclear it will cause a Domino effect.
Good think is Mattis takes orders from Trump. Remove the sanctions, thank Putin for Syria and normalize relations. Cold war is over, time to move on.
This is what happens when an empire falls from grace. We throw tantrums as if we still run the world. We condemn Russia for Syria while we fight an endless war on terror, drone striking innocent people. The hypocrisy is ripe.
Alliances cause world wars, they don't prevent them. History 101.
Cool story bro. I am going to go ahead and defer to the experienced general rather than the real estate developer when it comes to matters of international politics and war.
p.s. I don't think, at any point in U.S. history, I'd refer to our republic as an "empire"
The director is a partisan liberal Democrat who donated money to the Obama campaign. He may or may not be correct, but you have to give context to who he is.
At what point can a guy have a political view and still do his job? Donald Trump just gave his company over to his sons and essentially said "I won't ask them what is going on with it so I won't know anything about it" and we are supposed to be like: yeah dude I totally believe you. I am not that gullible and I would venture to guess that almost no one who uses this website is that gullible. Next, you'll tell me to believe Randall Stephenson (CEO of AT&T) when he said that the time warner merger was not discussed when he met with Trump today. You can say he had no other option, you can say he's already rich thus the obvious conflicts of interest will not affect him, but please don't try to convince me that this plan will actually be effective at preventing conflicts of interest. Framing everything into liberals vs. conservatives is part of the issue in this country.
I don't think that forcing anyone to take on billions in losses as a requirement of running for office is a good policy. Given the highly hostile disposition of the press, I think it's really unlikely Trump's able to sneak something past us where he clearly prioritizes the Trump Organization over the interest of the public.
Bingo. Common sense rules the day. I cannot believe people think Trump could sneeze without someone reporting on it.
The next four years will not be boring. carry on
The right-wing Liberty Caucus just announced that yesterday's budget passed by the Senate Republicans "may be the worst budget ever seriously considered by Congress". This from the party who has decried the deficit under Obama over the last 8 years. All so they could strip healthcare from the citizens of the richest country on Earth.
Certain well-regarded long-standing members of this website are absolutely embarrassing themselves with their Trump fandom. The guy is absolutely unfit for office, full stop. I voted Bush, McCain, Romney and am the biggest anti-Trump guy of anyone I know. Country over party.
Shitting on trump while voting for war mongers. Cool. How about that trillion Bush spent and all the people that died for a lie. How about military industry complex McCain and his always war mongering. Gotta love Romney and his religion conservative fuck working class ppl over.
Democrats make me sick, but at least the try and represent the people.
Might as well vote for the Koch Bros.
Lol country over party. Go tell all the limbless vests that joke.
Your daddy-elect named John Bolton as Deputy SOS who STILL thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq, and Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor who is on the record saying the entire religion of Islam is a cancer inside the souls of 2 billion people. I don't buy his isolationist language for a second - Trump is just begging to start a war and MAGA the shit out of flyover country by sending their underemployed boys overseas into another endless war.
You can be snarkier, older, angrier than other posters here. Doesn't make you right.
Long time lurker here - figured I finally throw my hat in the ring and make an account.
I am merely a young college student about to enter the workforce after May graduation. Just want to stir the pot and hopefully gain some wisdom from older members of this community.
I believe people are overly concerned about President-Elect Trump's potential conflicts of interest. Has Trump taken steps to reduce these conflicts? Yes. Is the situation/arrangement ideal? Probably not. I believe this post best captures the reality of things.
Trump's actions and his son's business activities will be so heavily scrutinized that I hardly believe it's something worth losing much sleep over. If seriously egregious conflicts come to light, Trump will face the consequences. In the meantime, perhaps there are other issues more worthy of attention: namely economic and foreign policy.
In terms of economic policy, these seem to be Trump's primary objectives: tax cuts, protectionism to bolster American manufacturing, deregulation, and massive infrastructure spending.
Foreign policy seems a little more difficult to pin down (not much to take away from "we will bomb the shit out of ISIS"), but the gist seems to be: friendlier relations with Russia, demands for greater self-reliance among America's key international allies, and a tougher stance on trade relations with China (and most other trading partners for that matter).
Any chance we can collectively weigh in on the relative merits/faults of these economic and foreign policy details?
Lowering the corporate tax rate is a great idea and I think it will pass with significant bipartisan support. All around solid and should have happened long ago. As we've seen in the market reaction, that should be a net positive.
Similarly, the relaxing of regulation will be good for business. I spoke to the CEO of one of the largest mid-steam oil companies in the US the day after the election, their stock was up 5-7% and I asked "what do you do with this information". He noted in this case they expect regulation to ease up and that it should be good for potential new investments and problems with existing assets.
Screwing with trade is going to be a shit-storm with unknown consequences. Messing with China, the largest and fastest growing consumer class (I'm not backing this up with data so anyone feel free to rebut if I'm wrong), is not a solid plan. His protectionist bull crap will not work out well, as anyone who's ever taken an economics class will attest.
Foreign policy? As you noted, I don't know that we really know what it will be other than "I'm strong, respect me, we're the best". A show of strength definitely has it's place, probably more often 50-100 years ago than now but could definitely back down Iran a bit. I firmly believe Putin likes Trump because he believes he can manipulate him and thought this before the recent reports.
I do very much like his "pay us to protect you" stance. I don't like giving Israel billions of dollars every year, even if they do spend it here. If you want to subsidize US defense contractors just do it directly.
Agreed on most of these points, with a few minor additions.
I think a lower corporate tax rate combined with the elimination of loopholes could be effective policy. However, I doubt lower personal income tax rates would spur meaningful growth.
One could tentatively make the same argument against corporations (tax savings being used on stock buybacks and other forms of financial engineering as opposed to R&D, capital expenditures, etc.) This view seems more convincing at the household level, simply because you wouldn't expect a sudden boost in consumption under a more regressive tax regime. (Rich people would probably invest the windfall in financial assets, not consume more)
Deregulation generally greases the wheels of the economy. However, I believe there are 2 exceptions: financial and environmental regulation. The financial sector seems most rife with potential for instances of fraud and risky behavior; the potential consequences are also the most severe (e.g., financial crises). Dodd-Frank thus falls in the category of "good" regulation, and should be subject to incremental adjustments as opposed to being completely hacked away. Regarding environmental regulation, I admittedly know very little about EPA measures - particularly in regards to carbon emissions. My instinct is that they are desirable for the most part. Even if one completely disregards the notion of climate change, it still would be favorable to incentivize a movement away from dirtier fossils (coal) and towards cleaner fuels like nat gas or renewables. Eventually (next ~100 years?) , we will run out of fossil fuels. Wouldn't it be smart to ease the transition into a post-fossil fuels world?
No qualms with your views on international trade. Protectionism will serve only to disrupt the global supply chain while bringing back less-desirable manufacturing jobs.
However, I believe we could do a better job of helping out the "losers" of trade. Retraining programs and the like. Alas, I realize that the implementation would be a bitch of a task. Is it realistic to expect the average blue-collar worker to have the intellectual and motivational capacity to continually gain new skills required of more higher value-add, more advanced manufacturing positions? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Foreign policy, in my opinion, requires a soft, pragmatic approach to nurturing alliances and global cooperation while firmly, yet gently chipping away at the power and influence of evil forces (north korea, ISIS). On the world stage, bold and erratic behavior is more likely to sow chaos than bring about desired geopolitical changes. What is most troublesome to me is Trump's antagonistic behavior towards China (on Taiwan, on trade) Is it wise to irritate the second most powerful nation on this planet - one that in many ways has conducted itself as a more responsible world citizen than have other major players (Russia) - only to turn around and demand their support (in controlling North Korea)?
On a related tangent/rant: Better relations with Russia and China shouldn't be mutually exclusive. But prioritizing friendlier ties to Russia while antagonizing China is like drafting Sam Bowie (WHO??) in 1984 instead of Charles Barkley, John Stockton, or Michael Fucking Jordan.
Okay. First of all: Breibart is trash. So are CNN, Fox, and Infowars for that matter. And who in their right mind listens to anything Buzz Feed publishes? I mean seriously? I mean I get it, people read that stuff but news agencies? That's like republishing something from the Onion--oh wait, that happened to the New York Times and ESPN. Yeah--I don't think that highly of media in general--not news media anyway. Secondly, regarding Trump's plan, I for one think its a doable idea. It isn't a blind trust but the most important part of the whole plan is that he's not making the decisions. If his children make decisions based on policy Trump creates that's technically completely legal, as long as it can be proven Trump isn't ordering his kids and basically using them as proxies.
For the record Breitbart did not in fact push the pizzagate story. Please calm down long enough to check for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abreitbart.com+pizza+comet+podest…
I believe I recall Milo Yiannopoulos saying that the site's editorial board had a blackout on the story when he was asked about it after one of his speeches. I'm not a journalist but refusing to cover a story like that (before the shooting incident) seems a reasonable way to handle it. Perhaps they should have actively refuted the story, but they certainly did not feed it.
Other sites did take an active role in combating the story: https://www.google.com/search?q=pizza+comet+podesta&espv=2&biw=1479&bih…
Don't bring there facts up. People won't listen. Have the time discussing on this board is just getting people to realize the actual truth of the situation.
Depends what your definition of "push" is?
https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552
https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920?ref_src=tw… http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/04/remembering-… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breit…
Then we have this amazing piece of journalism pushed by them surrounding the Hillary sex scandal - how is this any different from what you both claim CNN of doing (even though they didn't, and in reality the two are very different, but this is suspending facts right now)
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/16/matt-drudge-…
My point was that the organization is the epitome of what entails "fake news". If you're going to lambaste CNN for what you consider their reporting of "fake news" to damage the reputation of the president elect, then you absolutely need to follow through on that criticism and hold that the president elect should not be taking any questions from anyone who pushes these types of stories. If the concern truly is "fake news" then you should clearly have the decency to admit that him taking the question from Brietbart right after was the definition of hypocrisy.
So your retort that pizza gate wasn't originally pushed by Breitbart was to include a tweet with a Wikileaks email and then a now 6 year old tweet calling podesta a pedo?
It's been established that Breitbart didn't break the story and started reporting on it when all the others have. It became a story when some dude came in with a gun.
But that's the same as CNN publishing an unverified report that buzzfeed broke that day.
Totally the same thing.
Everyone on this thread has no choice but to watch Trump do whatever the fuck he is allowed to do. If you're upset, you better get a fucking prescription because you're in for a long ride my friend.
I would suggest you stop the chronic bitching associated with liberalism and actually give the guy a chance. Perhaps you can get a few hairs on your nuts and stop crying for long enough to see that he is for America. If you have a problem with that you are not an indentured servant or a slave. Feel free to drift your snowflake ass to whatever country, province or planet will keep your tears from flooding our streets.
Quasi nam mollitia provident aut et voluptatem eum commodi. Adipisci fugit praesentium autem sed animi. Et odio aliquam sit ut exercitationem non aut et. Suscipit saepe nam maiores.
Pariatur sunt nostrum minima quia quidem corporis aut. Itaque in quam nisi dolores quam porro nobis labore.
Quidem consectetur deserunt sunt incidunt ratione nemo. Repellat quae nobis dolorum eius consequatur. Incidunt non consequatur iure dolores.
Voluptas eos dolorem beatae occaecati aut eos ut. Voluptatem unde vero sunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quis nihil suscipit sit qui aliquam est rerum atque. Omnis rerum voluptas ea rerum dolorem non. Libero unde quisquam et commodi soluta explicabo cum. Sunt incidunt minus alias. Distinctio repudiandae dignissimos est rem illo labore consequatur pariatur. Officiis tempore totam quia magni natus.
Ducimus eos tempora maiores autem nemo maiores qui autem. Nulla facilis praesentium qui mollitia excepturi qui aut. Itaque fugit repellendus aut assumenda. Quis pariatur vel fugit quibusdam aliquid.
Voluptas aperiam harum sed ad. Non dolorem voluptas laudantium voluptas debitis. Placeat veniam repellendus dolorem quasi expedita. Enim ut ea voluptatibus blanditiis voluptas autem. Ipsum iure debitis quia quasi harum fugiat.
Nostrum autem dignissimos sed dignissimos esse magni. Quaerat debitis odit culpa voluptatem quia consequuntur qui. Corrupti eveniet unde ratione neque. Quasi animi vitae sunt facilis eos animi deserunt.
Qui occaecati quam saepe placeat tempore eos. Tenetur sed quo fuga repellat cumque occaecati. Sed quia atque ea qui. Iusto fugit ea unde dolorum alias reiciendis nulla. Placeat quae aspernatur accusamus non distinctio aspernatur.
Sed eaque eos omnis cumque voluptatem. Illo qui rerum nemo voluptatibus debitis nihil. Sed officiis hic ipsum voluptate hic delectus. Autem qui repudiandae rerum non fugit et accusantium. Consequatur recusandae quo rem cumque.