Donald Trump before:
Now that he is no longer self funding he is controlled by donors, special interests, and lobbyists by his own definition. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Not only that, but his 'self funded' campaign was in significant part a scam anyway. At least about a quarter of his 'self funding' money (as of a few months ago at least) was spent on purchasing goods and services from his own businesses and basically all the money he has 'donated' to his campaign is in the form of loans, meaning he basically hasn't 'self funded' at all.
It's all just another scam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/u...-funded-risks-little-of-his-fortune.html?_r=0
So in short he was never really self funding to begin with, and he's every bit as dependent on donors as every other candidate is now that he's tossed yet another promise aside. I for one am shocked that he's lied to his supporters once again, haha.
I would LOVE to trade the transcripts of Hillary's speeches for transcripts of some of Trump's private remarks. That would be amazing.
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
He said his investigators found 'unbelievable' things but then he mysteriously decided not to release any of them and now doesn't want to talk about it anymore.
I'm sure this isn't just yet another lie that his supporters got duped into believing, haha. You have to feel sorry for some of them. They are the world's easiest marks.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Trump is applying his business knowledge, by figuring out that in-depth knowledge and specific solutions are without benefit in a Presidential campaign.
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
And I know way more than you. Who are you to disagree with me?
See how that works?
I have no idea, has he made a bunch of speeches for large amounts of money paid by those he's railing against and supposedly will be regulating for the American people?
Not apples to apples. The point is, if you're going to complain that he hasn't released something, the same can be said for her.
Actually exactly what I thought. An arbitrary distinction based on your subjective opinion. That's fine to have that opinion, but it has no basis in logic, it's just based on your feelings.
So duck hunting - outlawed. Quail hunting? Outlawed. Etc
No rational logical basis, just your opinion. Pretty much what all the lefties complain the righty religious always want to do, push their views on morals on others. Funny how that goes full circle.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
Unfortunately in today's reality tv life and short attention spans, it allows someone like Trump to profit from the stupidly and anger of a large portion of the electorate. He may literally "tweet" his way into the presidency.
Last edited:
And what are you making that statement on? Things he's said or things he's done or you somehow just know?
Trump is a walking contradiction. He says he's not beholden to lobbyists yet who does he appoint as his campaign manager? A guy who was the chief lobbyist for despots who the US was fighting.
It's incredible the GOP is so lacking for leadership you've left your discernment at the door.
What's sad is your party is the reason politicians like Hilary exists.
It's almost like ur part of a gang. What does her transcripts have to do with his taxes? You should just say you don't think politicians should have to release their taxes. But instead we get the non-coherent statement above. Exactly what our politics have devolved to.
I for one would like to see it all. Her transcripts, His contracts that have NDAs attached, his settlements on most of his larger non personal cases, his off the record conversation with the Post and Times. Let's see it all so we can vet the accuracy of who they claim to be.
But, there is a historical precedent for candidates releasing their taxes. And Trump hasn't. Seems like he's really calling it as he sees it...
Baloney again. You can accept money without being controlled by the donors. If you are completely dependent on them, then yes, you are controlled by them. He can probably raise plenty of money without having to be beholden to anyone. Even the donors know he's a wild card that pretty much marches to the beat of his own drummer, they can't control him. That's why the establishment is terrified of him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/u...-funded-risks-little-of-his-fortune.html?_r=0
If he moves money from one pocket to another to fund his campaign, it still leaves him not controlled by donors. The exact details are meaningless. Also, linking to another NYT hit piece? lol
Private remarks are not the same as remarks made to an audience as a paid speaker. Completely different things. I'm certain if I could get the "private remarks" of any person there would be enough embarrassing or problematic things said that you could sink them easily.
You have to be joking. Let's define some terms as quickly as possible so we can move this from the realm of emotional rationalization towards something we can at least agree on.
What percentage of your campaign funding has to come from donors to be 'completely dependent' on them? A ballpark figure will do.
How do you define money that is raised without being beholden to people as compared to money raised that makes you beholden to people? What's the defining difference?
If he moves money from one pocket to another to fund his campaign, it still leaves him not controlled by donors. The exact details are meaningless. Also, linking to another NYT hit piece? lol
What? This was just bonus points about how he's pulling a larger grift with his campaign. Watch him pay himself back for his 'loans' with interest, that interest coming from his supporters' donations. I wonder what you would say about Hillary if she did that?
Also, lol @ 'hit piece'. What part of its accuracy are you disputing?
Why are they different? Are you saying that paid remarks to a private audience do not deserve protection but unpaid remarks to a private audience do? If so, why? Had Hillary returned her speaking fee would that somehow then render them immune?
Lol #1:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/trump-teleprompter-aipac-speech/
Lol #2: Serial liar Hillary? Do you consider Trump to be a serial liar? If not, why?
He is a businessman and a billionaire. He has enough money and doesn't *need* to people to keep giving him money to run for office. As such, he's by default less beholden to the donors than someone with limited means.
Aye, no disagreement here.
He's not having this guy run the country (or be the sec of state *cough*) for him, he's hiring this guy to be his campaign manager. Sounds like a smart business move. It doesn't make him beholden to lobbyists.
My party? lol Fail. I don't have a party. Yes, the R's are devoid of leadership, much like the D's. Like I said, two horrible choices.
The point was that you accused him of not having released his taxes. That is accurate, but makes him no different than his opponent who also hasn't released information voters would like to see. No difference.
Absolutely not, nobody is going to give up that kind of private information, nor should they. You also realize what an NDA is for right? That's the whole point of them, so the information is not released.
But, there is a historical precedent for candidates releasing their taxes. And Trump hasn't. Seems like he's really calling it as he sees it...
There's no requirement that he do so, just like there's no requirement that hildabeast release her transcripts. We might want that information as voters, but if they don't release it, we all have to make a judgement as to what it means to us.
I'm guessing he decided not to release the tax returns because it would probably show his wealth/income is not as high as we think, and we know the lefty media would have a field day with it. Sounds like a smart move to not release it.
Wow, one speech.
Do you not consider hillary a liar a why not?
Come on now Dear Leader, surely your insane investment will pay dividends here.
To his campaign, for sure. At this point, all he has to do is say "Murica! Hell Yeah!" to keep his devotees in line.
I didn't say anything about if Hillary was a liar or not. You used Hillary's use of a teleprompter and her supposed 'serial lying' as reasons to dislike her. Now that we know Trump uses teleprompters too (after saying they were bad, lol), the only question is if you consider him to be a serial liar.
You clearly thought those things were bad, yet they both appear to apply to your preferred candidate. I'm interested to see how you rationalize this, haha.
Well, hildabeast is 100% dependent. That means even if he's only 99% dependent on them, he's less beholden to the donors than she is. My guess is he can finance a big chunk of his campaign himself if he chooses to, but I don't know exactly how much, nor do I care.
If contributors have a reasonable expectation that their contribution could result in favorable treatment or consideration in the future, and the candidate is dependent on those donations, then I'd say they are beholden to the donor. In that sense, Bernie is probably the least corrupted and beholden of the candidates, that's something I give him credit for.
Trump went through the whole primary campaign without having to beg for big money from megadonors. That kind of money comes with strings attached, while $5 or $25 dollar donations don't.
I'd say it's probably one of her far lesser evils
I haven't read it, but since it's NYT's, it's likely to just be another in their string of hit pieces. Not that it matters anyway.
If you are being paid to say things, there's the expectation that you bring value with what you say. I'd be curious to see what was said to provide that value. Either way, she doesn't have to release them, just like he doesn't have to release anything either. It's up to the voters to make a call on what they think of it.
You're the one dodging, genius. You criticized Hillary over attributes that your own preferred candidate displays. Did you not notice the glaring hypocrisy there?
We start with this.
And end with this.
You don't see a contradiction there? Please tell me you do.
And end with this.
You don't see a contradiction there? Please tell me you do.
I don't know about LK, but I consider him to be a serial liar like all politicians, just less consistently
Now that Trump is assumed to be the nominee, I think we're going to see him pivot towards a more "responsible" more polished candidate, less off the cuff stuff, less twitter stuff, more advisors, more crafted statements, more prompters etc. Personally I'd much rather see the unpolished candidate than the manicured carefully crafted facade, but that's the direction I think he's heading in.
How is she 100% dependent? It's quite likely that by November Clinton will have gotten both more money from small donors and a larger percentage of her donations from small donors than Trump.
Give me a percentage of donations and what criteria would be used, then we can measure things up.
He is explicitly getting money from megadonors now, so it seems that by your own logic you can't say that about Trump anymore, right?
Oh ok, so now all inconvenient information from the most prestigious newspaper in the country doesn't count anymore. Good way to avoid uncomfortable facts!
Why would you be privy to what Goldman Sachs finds valuable and why would that change if she wasn't paid for it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter