• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to add an interesting tidbit to the general election discussion, I was at a dinner party last night with a friendly acquaintance who is a professor of government and a key political consultant for the Democratic party. He said that Hillary has a 7 point lead over Trump, and it has actually been remarkably steady despite the fluctuations in the headline polls. He claims that the fluctuations are due to response rates (e.g. in part due to short-term enthusiasm for one's choice) and not due to undecided voters flip-flopping on their allegiance. He thinks the voters are pretty well locked in and that Hillary has a much higher probability of winning than Nate Silver is coming up with (using his polls-plus forecast, which is at 25% last I checked).

That's probably the best information I have, so I'm going with that. At the very least, that's the view of the numbers geeks inside the Democratic Party.
 
Ladewig said:
The guy was smart enough to take in $1,000,000 and was stupid enough to get caught? I guess I am underestimating greed's ability to make people foolish.
Click to expand...

Politico had an article on this and he doesn't actually care if he got caught. What he did wasn't actually illegal. Trump will probably give him an "Entrepreneur Of the Month" award. He found a vulnerable weakness and he took advantage of it. Since the rules governing PACs are so full of **** that he can still claim to be doing good for his contributors, he hasn't done anything illegal.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Politico had an article on this and he doesn't actually care if he got caught. What he did wasn't actually illegal. Trump will probably give him an "Entrepreneur Of the Month" award. He found a vulnerable weakness and he took advantage of it. Since the rules governing PACs are so full of **** that he can still claim to be doing good for his contributors, he hasn't done anything illegal.
Click to expand...

Politico had an article a couple weeks ago about Conservative Inc. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164

After his razor-thin 2012 congressional defeat, Allen West, an African-American former Florida congressman, filed a complaint with the FEC against PACs raising money off his race but doing nothing to help him. The FEC concluded it lacked authority to police such efforts. “Draft Ben Carson” paid off well for the North Carolinian who took a $236,000 salary and sent gobs more to a company comprised only of him.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing happens all the time with charities.
 
On the debate issue I heard something interesting this morning. Apparently Donald is not doing any mock debate prep. And based on viewing the tape of the debates, there is a serious question of whether he will be able to make it for 90 minutes in a one on one debate. It appears that he was getting tired by the end of the other debates and that was while sharing the time with several others.

Clinton has been through several one on one debates. She know what it takes in physical terms as well as mental and she will be better prepared. This is like a linebacker thinking he can start boxing without any prep. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Politico had an article a couple weeks ago about Conservative Inc. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164



This sort of thing happens all the time with charities.
Click to expand...

Let's stop calling them charities. They are scams. Legal scams, enabled by the clowns in both parties who are running for office but who refuse to deal with the situation, and enforced by the Supreme Court, godblessit....

PACs are the most obscene anti-democracy development of the modern era. It's like Tamany Hall but without the give-backs that the old party bosses used to return to the voting community. I keep thinking we're really not any better off than the old "smoke-filled-rooms" era.
 
Foolmewunz said:
PACs are the most obscene anti-democracy development of the modern era. It's like Tamany Hall but without the give-backs that the old party bosses used to return to the voting community. I keep thinking we're really not any better off than the old "smoke-filled-rooms" era.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is what makes them better. Donors get nothing for their money.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Let's stop calling them charities. They are scams. Legal scams, enabled by the clowns in both parties who are running for office but who refuse to deal with the situation, and enforced by the Supreme Court, godblessit....
....
Click to expand...

PACs aren't charities. Contributions aren't tax-deductible. They operate under a whole different set of laws and regulations than charities.
 
I'm going to start a right wing SuperPAC. Rather than use the money I raise to help Republicans and Republican causes, I will just pay all of it to myself as a salary or consulting fee. Totally legal!
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
I'm going to start a right wing SuperPAC. Rather than use the money I raise to help Republicans and Republican causes, I will just pay all of it to myself as a salary or consulting fee. Totally legal!
Click to expand...

You may want to budget some of that to legal fees. I can be of some assistance in that regard . . . .
 
So Donald is demanding Hillary's health records. I bet her health is better than his. She should suggest to Donald that they both undergo physical and psychiatric exams.
 
Ladewig said:
The guy was smart enough to take in $1,000,000 and was stupid enough to get caught? I guess I am underestimating greed's ability to make people foolish.
Click to expand...

He raked in 1mn from 20,000 donors. That's on average $50 per donor. You've got to be pretty stupid if you think that gives you a seat at a dinner with Trump.

Besides that, I don't see anything immoral in it. These Trump supporters want to be conned. They then shouldn't complain they're actually conned, albeit not by the man they want to be conned by.
 
ddt said:
He raked in 1mn from 20,000 donors. That's on average $50 per donor. You've got to be pretty stupid if you think that gives you a seat at a dinner with Trump.

Besides that, I don't see anything immoral in it. These Trump supporters want to be conned. They then shouldn't complain they're actually conned, albeit not by the man they want to be conned by.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it was donate $50 for chance at having dinner with Donald. They (if it were legitimate) would pick one person, or a small handful of people out of those that donated to have dinner with him. Hillary fundraises like that.
 
Tony Stark said:
I'm guessing it was donate $50 for chance at having dinner with Donald. They (if it were legitimate) would pick one person, or a small handful of people out of those that donated to have dinner with him. Hillary fundraises like that.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for the correction, and apologies for my ignorance.

And after reading that Politico article, boy am I glad to live in a country where I'm not inundated by all kind of PACs, and even the political parties themselves don't solicit extra funds in election season.
 
ddt said:
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for the correction, and apologies for my ignorance.

And after reading that Politico article, boy am I glad to live in a country where I'm not inundated by all kind of PACs, and even the political parties themselves don't solicit extra funds in election season.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda glad that right wing SuperPACs often scam the donors and don't do anything with the money but enrich those that run them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom