Donald Trump

B0jangles

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Anyone else donate to his campaign?

I'm not trolling I swear.

Be wary about setting up a recurring donation to the Trump campaign; apparently it is pretty difficult to cancel it:

http://lawnewz.com/politics/report-trump-campaign-makes-it-a-pain-to-cancel-monthly-donations/

My name is URL

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Anyone else donate to his campaign?

I'm not trolling I swear.

Unless you're a US citizen or permanently residing there, then it's illegal for political campaigns to accept your donations..

I think maybe you are 'trolling'

If not then you've most likely committed fraud, so well done either way

RDM_83 again

Bazzo wrote: »

And don't get me started on how the whole country treat the word "socialism" like it's the worst thing imaginable. The very people things like public healthcare are designed to help will march and rally against it because the god damn government can't tell them what to do! It beggars belief.

A lot of left leaning people seem to think that opposing something like Obamacare is reactionary idiocy but don't examine the reasoning behind it, if somebody is relatively young or older and fairly healthy but on low income it actually doesn't make sense to support it.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/06/millennials-obamacare-insurance-cost-health-invincible

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/23/no-obamacare-is-not-a-good-deal-for-young-people-in-the-long-run-not-even-close/#79eeb83a522d

Correlating opposition to obamacare to anything more than opposing obamacare is simply confirmation bias to support the side your on and ignores the fact that many people particularly in relation to cold hard financial decisions are rational actors and can work out that for them the system won't work.

Bazzo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A lot of left leaning people seem to think that opposing something like Obamacare is reactionary idiocy but don't examine the reasoning behind it, if somebody is relatively young or older and fairly healthy but on low income it actually doesn't make sense to support it.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/06/millennials-obamacare-insurance-cost-health-invincible

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/23/no-obamacare-is-not-a-good-deal-for-young-people-in-the-long-run-not-even-close/#79eeb83a522d

Correlating opposition to obamacare to anything more than opposing obamacare is simply confirmation bias to support the side your on and ignores the fact that many people particularly in relation to cold hard financial decisions are rational actors and can work out that for them the system won't work.

Healthcare was an example, not the point. I was talking about their attitude toward socialist policies in general, a bad hangover from the cold war.

Arytonblue

The US may like to treat socialism as a big, bad, dirty word and the political establishment like to play to the crowd that wants to believe it doesn't exist but the fact remains that the US Federal government is one of the largest, most far reaching in the world. It's expansion from FDR right up to Nixon saw to that, creating one of the world's largest bureaucracies with massive amounts of regulatory frameworks and government run institutions. IMO it's a left over from the Cold War mindset, being against the commies out East and all that. Basically they've incorporated all the major tenants of Western European social democracy whilst saying they are the complete opposite.

With the Tea Party cack from 2010 onwards, and now the Trump 'movement' (I see a lot of correlation between the two) we have lots of Americans saying the government is too big, we need to bring back jobs and secure our borders etc. It's crowd pleasing rhetoric that seeks to apportion blame for the downtrodden working and lower middle classes suffering in terms of real income and job opportunities. But it's contradictory at best, on the one hand they want 'less gubernment' (ie. lower spending on benefits for the mooching class) but at the same time demand bring back American jobs, which basically proposes protectionist policies and cancelling deals like NAFTA and closing free trade agreements. This would require more government regulation and oversight, as well as state support for struggling domestic industries to keep them afloat. Not to mention all the policing, security and building costs that would be needed to 'secure the border'.

It's hard not to have sympathy for this section of American society that has seemingly been left behind, but when they rally behind a man like Trump, one of the many public faces of the elitist plutocracy that has left them in this position, all because he's 'shaking things up' and giving the proverbial finger to immigrants and minorities it's hard to see their political cause as truly genuine and not just another rabble of reactionary anti-everything group.

ToddyDoody

My name is URL wrote: »

Unless you're a US citizen or permanently residing there, then it's illegal for political campaigns to accept your donations..

I think maybe you are 'trolling'

If not then you've most likely committed fraud, so well done either way

Didn't Hillary Clinton do fundraising in Ireland some years back? You sure it's illegal?

Billy86

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Didn't Hillary Clinton do fundraising in Ireland some years back? You sure it's illegal?

It's illegal to accept donations from non US citizens or permanent residents, if I recall.

ampleforth

Billy86 wrote: »

It's illegal to accept donations from non US citizens or permanent residents, if I recall.

It makes sense, otherwise a presidency could be supported by people from other states and therefore also strongly influenced by them.

If it is not the case, then I would call this adventurous to the least. But, on the other hand, it is America, where loud people and movie stars run offices. Nothing is impossible there, as long as you have money .

Kermit.de.frog

I suppose human troll Alex Jones is the type of mind Trump attracts. Invading one's set is part of the course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM

My name is URL

That video perfectly sums up the world we live in today and this election so far.

I want to get off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A lot of left leaning people seem to think that opposing something like Obamacare is reactionary idiocy but don't examine the reasoning behind it, if somebody is relatively young or older and fairly healthy but on low income it actually doesn't make sense to support it.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/06/millennials-obamacare-insurance-cost-health-invincible

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/23/no-obamacare-is-not-a-good-deal-for-young-people-in-the-long-run-not-even-close/#79eeb83a522d

Correlating opposition to obamacare to anything more than opposing obamacare is simply confirmation bias to support the side your on and ignores the fact that many people particularly in relation to cold hard financial decisions are rational actors and can work out that for them the system won't work.

The lower paid having to pay fines is just dumb, I don't know who brought that in. Was it a Democrat idea or a Republican concession.

Lots of people now have coverage and are happy to have it so there are plenty of positives. But you get people who are opposed to Obamacare because the Tea Party or Republicans were against it and the opposite in the Democrats, that's politics.

K-9

Arytonblue wrote: »

The US may like to treat socialism as a big, bad, dirty word and the political establishment like to play to the crowd that wants to believe it doesn't exist but the fact remains that the US Federal government is one of the largest, most far reaching in the world. It's expansion from FDR right up to Nixon saw to that, creating one of the world's largest bureaucracies with massive amounts of regulatory frameworks and government run institutions. IMO it's a left over from the Cold War mindset, being against the commies out East and all that. Basically they've incorporated all the major tenants of Western European social democracy whilst saying they are the complete opposite.

With the Tea Party cack from 2010 onwards, and now the Trump 'movement' (I see a lot of correlation between the two) we have lots of Americans saying the government is too big, we need to bring back jobs and secure our borders etc. It's crowd pleasing rhetoric that seeks to apportion blame for the downtrodden working and lower middle classes suffering in terms of real income and job opportunities. But it's contradictory at best, on the one hand they want 'less gubernment' (ie. lower spending on benefits for the mooching class) but at the same time demand bring back American jobs, which basically proposes protectionist policies and cancelling deals like NAFTA and closing free trade agreements. This would require more government regulation and oversight, as well as state support for struggling domestic industries to keep them afloat. Not to mention all the policing, security and building costs that would be needed to 'secure the border'.

It's hard not to have sympathy for this section of American society that has seemingly been left behind, but when they rally behind a man like Trump, one of the many public faces of the elitist plutocracy that has left them in this position, all because he's 'shaking things up' and giving the proverbial finger to immigrants and minorities it's hard to see their political cause as truly genuine and not just another rabble of reactionary anti-everything group.

Welfare is fcuked up in the States, about half the budget doesn't go social security type payments and go on sex education, marriage counselling courses and stuff like that. It also funds families on high incomes for third level education costs. Many don't even know welfare subsidises the cost. When they find out they justify it as them deserving it above others, basically they think others get payments too easily and they deserve whatever they get.

You see it in Ireland too but it's more divisive in America.

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

It's illegal to accept donations from non US citizens or permanent residents, if I recall.

My name is URL wrote: »

Unless you're a US citizen or permanently residing there, then it's illegal for political campaigns to accept your donations..

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Saudis-Fund-20-of-Clinton-Presidential-Campaign-Top-Prince-20160613-0006.html

Where there's a will, there's a loophole way.

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Saudis-Fund-20-of-Clinton-Presidential-Campaign-Top-Prince-20160613-0006.html

Where there's a will, there's a loophole way.

I see you've backed off the 'Snopes/Politico/etc are all biased' stuff, at least!

But using your line of reasoning, if you think Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation mean Clinton's campaign is Saudi funded and influenced, you also just said Trump is beholden to the Russians (and some particularly shady ones at that). After all, that's where he's been getting his loans from and doing business with ever since the American banks stopped giving him money because he just kept losing it and claiming bankruptcy.

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

So, yes, it’s true that Trump has failed to land a business venture inside Russia. But the real truth is that, as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians.

“The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”

What’s more, three of Trump’s top advisors all have extensive financial and business ties to Russian financiers, wrote Boot, the former editor of the Op Ed page of the Wall Street Journal and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But it is Trump’s financing from Russian satellite business interests that would seem to explain his pro-Putin sympathies.

The most obvious example is Trump Soho, a complicated web of financial intrigue that has played out in court. A lawsuit claimed that the business group, Bayrock, underpinning Trump Soho was supported by criminal Russian financial interests. While its initial claim absolved Trump of knowledge of those activities, Trump himself later took on the group’s principal partner as a senior advisor in the Trump organization.

“Tax evasion and money-laundering are the core of Bayrock’s business model,” the lawsuit said of the financiers behind Trump Soho. The financing came from Russian-affiliated business interests that engaged in criminal activities, it said. “(But) there is no evidence Trump took any part in, or knew of, their racketeering.”

Journalists who’ve looked at the Bayrock lawsuit, and Trump Soho, wonder why Trump was involved at all. “What was Trump thinking entering into business with partners like these?” Franklin Foer wrote in Slate. “It’s a question he has tried to banish by downplaying his ties to Bayrock.”

But Bayrock wasn’t just involved with Trump Soho. It financed multiple Trump projects around the world, Foer wrote. “(Trump) didn’t just partner with Bayrock; the company embedded with him. Bayrock put together deals for mammoth Trump-named, Trump-managed projects—two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a resort in Phoenix, the Trump SoHo in New York.”

But, as The New York Times has reported, that was only the beginning of the Trump organization’s entanglement with Russian financiers. Trump was quite taken with Bayrock’s founder, Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet-era commerce official originally from Kazakhstan.

“Bayrock, which was developing commercial properties in Brooklyn, proposed that Mr. Trump license his name to hotel projects in Florida, Arizona and New York, including Trump SoHo,” the Times reported. “The other development partner for Trump SoHo was the Sapir Organization, whose founder, Tamir Sapir, was from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.”

Trump was eager to work with both financial groups on Trump projects all over the world. “Mr. Trump was particularly taken with Mr. Arif’s overseas connections,” the Times wrote. “In a deposition, Mr. Trump said that the two had discussed ‘numerous deals all over the world’ and that Mr. Arif had brought potential Russian investors to Mr. Trump’s office to meet him. ‘Bayrock knew the people, knew the investors, and in some cases I believe they were friends of Mr. Arif,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘And this was going to be Trump International Hotel and Tower Moscow, Kiev, Istanbul, etc., Poland, Warsaw.’”

The Times also reported that federal court records recently released showed yet another link to Russian financial interests in Trump businesses. A Bayrock official “brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin,’” the Times reported. “The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a ‘strategic partner,’ along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.”

K-9

Tbh I don't care where he gets his loans from but they seem to be influencing his love in with Putin and anti-NATO stance. There's no point in him saying he's not beholden to Wall Street if he just swaps it for Russia instead.

The Republicans warned about Putin before and they were right, Trump's stance on him is odd to say the least.

Kermit.de.frog

Trump speaking at rally - linky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_aXfUet-Hg

El_Duderino 09

So it appears that trump has dipped in the polls after the last couple of weeks. Now that he appears to be turning to the economy which is his strong suit with voters, how much of the gap will he regain? It will be fascinating to see how much he can claw back by making vague promises like 'were going to create so many jobs, believe me'.

Prepare to be disgusted by how powerful that nonsense message will be.

Cienciano

He's dropping like a stone in the polls. Think he needs to change the record from "crooked Hillary". I think he shot his load to early, he has nothing left. Pity, I wanted to see that wall built

Billy86

Cienciano wrote: »

He's dropping like a stone in the polls. Think he needs to change the record from "crooked Hillary". I think he shot his load to early, he has nothing left. Pity, I wanted to see that wall built

Why?

Widdershins

This doesn't surprise me one bit as I wouldn't put any evil act beyond the capacity of Hillary Warmongering Psychopath Clinton. And yet we're continually told by the media that Trump, the non-interventionist candidate, is the one we should be worried about.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=32072

CMOTDibbler

Cienciano wrote: »

He's dropping like a stone in the polls. Think he needs to change the record from "crooked Hillary". I think he shot his load to early, he has nothing left. Pity, I wanted to see that wall built

It's never going to be built, or if it is, it will be a massive failure from the word go. So never completed would probably be more accurate.

There's currently a fence on some of the more out of the way parts of the border and some not so much. There's even a complete golf course on the 'Mexico' side of the fence because it couldn't actually be erected on the border itself. That kind of problem will only be maginified when it comes to building a 35 foot, 40 foot, 55 foot, (whatever you're having yourself) wall.

There's a very (unwittingly) funny clip of Trump talking about people getting up the wall with ladders and asking rhetorically; "but how will they get down?" and then answering it himself; "with ropes".

K-9

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So it appears that trump has dipped in the polls after the last couple of weeks. Now that he appears to be turning to the economy which is his strong suit with voters, how much of the gap will he regain? It will be fascinating to see how much he can claw back by making vague promises like 'were going to create so many jobs, believe me'.

Prepare to be disgusted by how powerful that nonsense message will be.

All the good work from the convention was undone, it looked like the party was going to unite behind him, a job well done by his campaign team. Now he's back to square one again.

Trump non interventionist? If you don't count ISIS I suppose.

Samaris

Widdershins wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me one bit as I wouldn't put any evil act beyond the capacity of Hillary Warmongering Psychopath Clinton. And yet we're continually told by the media that Trump, the non-interventionist candidate, is the one we should be worried about.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=32072

That website is glorious. "TRUMP DESTROYS CLINTON WITH ONE TWEET!" "SEE CLINTON EAT BABIES!" "Trump To Announce Something 'YUGE' In Major Economy Speech!" "Traitorous Republicans Are Throwing In A New Candidate To Oppose Trump!"

One of these statements I just made up. But "yuge"? *cringe* C'mon guys, you're supposed to be electing a statesman, not a carnival act.

K-9 wrote: »

Trump non interventionist? If you don't count ISIS I suppose.

And the whole 20-30,000 troops to ..ah..how did he put it "circle the oil".

Oh, and the nukes thing.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

That website is glorious. "TRUMP DESTROYS CLINTON WITH ONE TWEET!" "SEE CLINTON EAT BABIES!" "Trump To Announce Something 'YUGE' In Major Economy Speech!" "Traitorous Republicans Are Throwing In A New Candidate To Oppose Trump!"

One of these statements I just made up. But "yuge"? *cringe* C'mon guys, you're supposed to be electing a statesman, not a carnival act.



And the whole 20-30,000 troops to ..ah..how did he put it "circle the oil".

Oh, and the nukes thing.

I don't know the site . It was the WikiLeaks bit I was interested in .

CMOTDibbler

Widdershins wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me one bit as I wouldn't put any evil act beyond the capacity of Hillary Warmongering Psychopath Clinton. And yet we're continually told by the media that Trump, the non-interventionist candidate, is the one we should be worried about.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=32072

Back in the day when Assad was the bad guy and the rebel forces were mainly the Free Syrian Army, everyone was helping them including Turkey from whom those Libyan arms came, allegedly.

IS only emerged later in that conflict. I doubt they were getting arms from Turkey, but you never know with Erdogan since the Kurds are his big bugbear (at least until now ).

Samaris

Hey, have you been seeing this Evan Mullins thing? He's a former chief policy director of the HoR Republican Conference and he's throwing in his hat for the Republican Party on an anti-Trump platform. Now, he's not got a hope - not only for all the obvious reasons, but he mathematically hasn't a hope either - he's missed the filing deadlines in 26 states and needs to raise thousands of signatures (and dollars) very quickly.

But what he could very conceivably do is throw traditionally conservative Utah. Trump is deeply unpopular with the Mormons there, of who Mullins is one, and it's already pretty close there.

I dunno, it sounds like a madhat thing to do, and it could just make things a lot worse, but...huh. So that happened.

Billy86

Widdershins wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me one bit as I wouldn't put any evil act beyond the capacity of Hillary Warmongering Psychopath Clinton. And yet we're continually told by the media that Trump, the non-interventionist candidate, is the one we should be worried about.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=32072

Oh come on now, you can do better than websites actively campaigning for Trump, surely? Founded 2015 with no active links on their privacy statement, disclaimer, or 'contact us' text at the bottom of the page, how curiously interesting... especially after just the tiniest glance at their front page.

I'm saying your source is reliable as crayoned etchings on toilet paper. One tiny example being this article, titled "Wikileaks Confirms Hillary Sold Weapons To ISIS", and in the very first paragraph it admits "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims he has proof to the contrary."

If I claim I have proof of Trump raping that 13 year old child then threatening to murder her that he is currently accused of, I take it you'll be accepting that as gospel too?

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

And the whole 20-30,000 troops to ..ah..how did he put it "circle the oil".

Oh, and the nukes thing.

You can't torture families and innocents without additional boots on the ground, too.

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

I see you've backed off the 'Snopes/Politico/etc are all biased' stuff, at least!

Hahaha of course I haven't, because they are!
All media tends to be, be it Snopes - Because their writers have their own interests, Breitbart - Because their writers have theirs, RTE - Because their board is appointed by people who hope to be working for the Brussels gravy train later, or RT - Because Putin, etc etc...

Billy86 wrote: »

IBut using your line of reasoning, if you think Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation mean Clinton's campaign is Saudi funded and influenced, you also just said Trump is beholden to the Russians (and some particularly shady ones at that). After all, that's where he's been getting his loans from and doing business with ever since the American banks stopped giving him money because he just kept losing it and claiming bankruptcy.

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Greedy American couldn't get his snout in the trough because there were too many greedy Americans in the way.
Look up how much other bankruptcies cost.. To people with connections to each other who would continue getting funding for even more than they declared bankruptcy to avoid paying back.. This is how billionaires play..

So, his money from questionable sources, could be worse, Could be money not really backed by anything and Russia is a pretty cheap place to do business.

But how much of that Russian money has he spent on his campaign? I'm going to assume he has, because I'm sure as hell assuming Clintons been spending middle East despot money on hers, even if she doesn't need to, given she's backed by money making Trumps total worth look like **** all...

Truth is, he's spent very little. Far less than the Clintons. One thing he's always said is that if he loses, it will be because he didn't get enough votes. It will not be because he poured a billion dollars into it.
Vote rigging is a given - not sure why he's whingeing about that tbh, most states don't even require voter ID... - But the idea is to win by a margin big enough that it cannot be rigged away, unlike the 2000 election.. If you don't, then tough. Buy you don't piss a third of your worth down the drain, for any reason. You piss your backers money, not yours.
That said, he's still managed to piss leagues more of his own money than anyone else so far

Billy86 wrote: »

Why?

To keep the tsunami of salty tears at bay on the off chance he wins

Actually, Hillary may require a similar structure..

Renegade Mechanic

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I don't care where he gets his loans from but they seem to be influencing his love in with Putin and anti-NATO stance. There's no point in him saying he's not beholden to Wall Street if he just swaps it for Russia instead.

The Republicans warned about Putin before and they were right, Trump's stance on him is odd to say the least.

Aye, it's the one that denys the military industrial conplex some of the billions to be made sending people off to die