EPTbut if you trust the government agencies that absolutely, that's fine for you
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3795
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
but if you trust the government agencies that absolutely, that's fine for you | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 12 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote: Please provide proof that he expressly states he is refusing to return the funds. I guess the FEC asking to pay it back, repeatedly, while adding more people to the list he hasn't payed back is insufficient evidence. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
@cam go to the fec site, search act blue click on individual contributions hyperlink under the 2 year summary tab. its itemized contributions, so only those bigger than 250 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 12 2016 07:20 Naracs_Duc wrote: I guess the FEC asking to pay it back, repeatedly, while adding more people to the list he hasn't payed back is insufficient evidence. As long as he sets aside the money he is supposed to return and keeps the FEC appraised, it should be fine. Its not like he can just spam out wire transfers, since most bank accounts will not accept those. Even if he sends it back in the form of a check, they might not cash it. I know people are going to find this hard to believe, but it can be very hard to return money. We handle surpluses for banks all the time and a bunch of it gets sent to abandoned property because can't send it to anyone. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
On May 12 2016 07:20 ticklishmusic wrote: chill p6 @cam go to the fec site, search act blue click on individual contributions hyperlink under the 2 year summary tab. its itemized contributions, so only those bigger than 250 my man! tx | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
that said, his campaign should get their shit together a little better if they are really doing out of line illegal stuff, I expect the FEC will take care of it. | ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
clearly shows how much we need mental health reform amirite | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
| ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
he probably pays less in taxes due to all sorts of rich people tricks, most of his stuff is probably held in s corps anyways to take advantage of tax stuff while avoiding double taxation. trump doesnt even own that much real estate these days, a lot of the stuff with his name on it is just branding. theres going to be depreciation of the real property and a bunch of other things which will reduce income for the corporate entity im not too familiar with tax credits or any he might have. i did read that a lot of his "charitable contributions" were actually just dollar values for not developing land (and just turning it into gold courses instead). anyways i dont think theres anything legally sketchy b/c the IRS has def looked at his files. it's almost guaranteed he's just not as rich as he says he is, pays less taxes and has lousy charitable contributions | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 12 2016 08:31 ticklishmusic wrote: it's almost guaranteed he's just not as rich as he says he is, pays less taxes and has lousy charitable contributions Yeah, that's what I'm guessing as well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 12 2016 08:31 ticklishmusic wrote: it's almost guaranteed he's just not as rich as he says he is I've informed Trump of this assertion of yours. Prepare for the incoming lawsuit. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
There won't be any "illegal donations being cleared out". And if they do there won't be any debt because the money was already spent. This would literally be a case of making something up out of thin air. And if they go after Bernie sanders for bunk online donations they'd have to go after EVERYONE ELSE who gets donations from online. I guarantee you there isn't anyone who has a 100% compliant donation system as that would require so many hoops no one would donate online. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On May 12 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote: I've informed Trump of this assertion of yours. Prepare for the incoming lawsuit. to win he has to prove its not true which means releasing his tax returns | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Democrats and climate hawks share a dilemma, and that dilemma is millennials. Millennials — people born between 1980 and 2000, give or take, depending on your definition — are, in many ways, an incredibly attractive political target. There's a lot of them, they lean Democrat, they are more concerned about climate change than older cohorts, and they absolutely love clean energy. The problem is, too few of them vote. "Between 1964 and 2012," writes Derek Thompson at the Atlantic, "youth voter turnout in presidential elections has fallen below 50 percent, and Baby Boomers now outvote their children's generation by a stunning 30 percentage points." It's even worse in midterm elections. Now, eco-billionaire Tom Steyer is going to put some of his money toward changing that. His Super PAC, NextGen Climate, is launching a $25 million "national campaign to register and mobilize young voters in seven key battleground states to help elect climate champions to the White House and the Senate this fall." Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
And I fully expect the millennial vote to plummet yet again. They aren't interested in Hillary. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23644 Posts
Had Bernie just not hit Clinton for her shady fundraising, and pushed these donations through superPACs he coordinates with or run by former campaign staff/close friends of his, you all would think that's fine, but you want to get your panties in a twist and once again point to reddit ravings after repeatedly dismissing reddit when you disagree with it.. I just hope plan is starting to see what I've been pointing out for a while. The Hillary circle jerk here is as bad as sanders reddit except you all don't accomplish anything with it here. On May 12 2016 08:47 xDaunt wrote: And I fully expect the millennial vote to plummet yet again. They aren't interested in Hillary. Without a doubt black and under 30 turnout will be down, maybe black women turnout goes up. | ||
| ||
