|
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. |
On September 06 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
The weird part about the Brexit is that its betting odds were running contrary to polling, which showed it to be close. But still, if you have money to burn why not?
The fact that NC is in play still boggles my mind. What an election.
I think the consensus arrived at in another forum is visit is that big money was putting bets on the brexit outcome for remain and profiting by putting far larger bets in the forex markets.A small change in the bookies odds gave quite large swings in the forex markets for the various currencies and overall the brexit bookie market was small, easily manipulated by a few hundred thousand pounds one way or the other.
|
|
|
guess wer not gonna hear the tapes of Ailes being scumbag. what a shame. colbert would have had a field day
|
The Republican message has increasingly become hostile towards the Democrats leading to a greater unfavorable view of them and the Democrats are tired of the obstructionism and scared of people like Cruz and Trump.
makes sense.
|
On September 06 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:
Seems about right. 20 million seems like a good amount for a company like Fox to pay, considering that will be one of many claims filed against them. That has to be one slam dunk case for it to be settled this fast.
The sharks can smell the blood coming out of FOX's whatever. I expect this to be very, very expensive to the network and I can't say I feel sorry for them.
|
Talking about the ability of man to affect the planet can really be shown by this chart. I didn't realize the actual stats were this bad until recently.
Concerning quakes and fraking:
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Oklahoma_3.0_earthquake_bar_graph_since_1978.png)
|
When regulation is so toothless that we are creating earthquakes.
|
Fracking is an industry that could be perfectly safe and acceptable. The earthquakes, pollution and other problems can all be handled by regulation and oversight. But like the oil and coal industry, every new regulation is met with claims it will end the industry and destroy jobs, so no one trusts fracking.
|
United States42776 Posts
On September 06 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 22:27 Toadesstern wrote:
honestly I'd probably put money on Trump winning for those odds as well. Don't think he's more likely to win than Clinton at all but 3.00 sounds fairly nice? PA sounds too rough for me though Buy Trump shares as a hedge.  Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
The weird part about the Brexit is that its betting odds were running contrary to polling, which showed it to be close. But still, if you have money to burn why not?
The fact that NC is in play still boggles my mind. What an election. Brexit was a mind bogglingly stupid move on the part of the ruling coalition. It's the equivalent of just having won a war the election), your soldiers are tired and the members of your alliance are all irritated and squabbly and want their rewards and you decide to go to war again (y'know, just because). And you lose because your side is a mess.
That's a very shitty way of explaining it. They didn't hold the Brexit vote for a laugh, they held it because that was the price they had to pay to consolidate the anti-EU vote in the general election to get the victory in the war.
|
On September 06 2016 22:44 Nevuk wrote:
Fox is settling with Carlson for 20 million
Pretty clear damage control settlement there. The price may actually be rather cheap.
|
On September 06 2016 23:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 06 2016 22:27 Toadesstern wrote:
honestly I'd probably put money on Trump winning for those odds as well. Don't think he's more likely to win than Clinton at all but 3.00 sounds fairly nice? PA sounds too rough for me though Buy Trump shares as a hedge. On September 06 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
The weird part about the Brexit is that its betting odds were running contrary to polling, which showed it to be close. But still, if you have money to burn why not?
The fact that NC is in play still boggles my mind. What an election. Brexit was a mind bogglingly stupid move on the part of the ruling coalition. It's the equivalent of just having won a war the election), your soldiers are tired and the members of your alliance are all irritated and squabbly and want their rewards and you decide to go to war again (y'know, just because). And you lose because your side is a mess. That's a very shitty way of explaining it. They didn't hold the Brexit vote for a laugh, they held it because that was the price they had to pay to consolidate the anti-EU vote in the general election to get the victory in the war.
I know it's a little more complex than that, but they decided to fight a battle which they could and should have won like 90% of the time in one of the 10% of situations where they lost. Speaking with 20/20 hindsight, they could have delayed the vote until they had gotten their crap together. Sure you pay a price for that, but it's less much less costly than Brexit. People forget fast.
EDIT: I lost a few bucks on it too, ugh.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Though it's easy to say otherwise now (and I had my own reasons for doubting the validity of the betting odds, especially that the high-turnout voters were Brexiteers), all of "the fundamentals" suggested a Remain vote would win. This result was a pretty big surprise and definitely the unlikely outcome of the vote.
|
WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.”
Source
|
On September 06 2016 16:16 KwarK wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly you think that there is so much of a scientific consensus that man made climate change is an immediate and threatening issue that you're worried that the consensus has too much momentum to be slowed by the dissent of contrary evidence. That the overwhelming agreement steamrolls potential disagreement.
And, if I may paraphrase you here, you think that the scientists are compromising themselves by politicizing their findings. You'd be fine with "all this carbon dioxide is causing warming that will have the following devastating impacts" but if they tack on "and we should probably do something about that" then they're moving from their area of expertise, pure science, into policy and politics which corrupt their findings.
If I understand your stance correctly I find it wholly indefensible. But thank you for indulging me with your answers at least. Even you can do better than that first paragraph. The entire topic has been co-opted by a political and social movement that seeks one correct answer, and that is industry is destroying the environment. Let the science breathe. Michael Mann is one excellent case study.
On September 06 2016 17:00 Acrofales wrote:
The observed data is from a lot longer timespan than 2 decades, although obviously the data has become a lot richer since we started actively pursuing more and better observations of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, glad to hear you acknowledge that experts overwhelmingly agree on the phenomenon and its cause. As for political and monetary influence, I wouldn't call seeing a threat and acting to attempt to prevent it "undue". If you were the astronomer who first saw a giant asteroid heading straight at earth, wouldn't you a, first ring the alarm bell, and b, then advocate doing something about it?
I chose two decades to try to nail down some definite aspect of climate change theory I might talk about. I think climate change exists: climates are always changing. Do you deny climate change? Not in the least. It's some of the claims the models show, such as future global temperatures and environmental damage, that is in doubt.
I just covered the aspect of advocacy vs science so I won't repeat myself here. It's obvious you've read it and find it unconvincing. If you haven't seen the green movement and the lobbying of IPCC and the climate of science, you're unlikely to find anything to change your mind on the point.
You think we should observe and debate about the world-as-we-know-it ending, rather than acting. Yeah, that sounds like a great policy.
Observing and debating is exactly what I think is needed. Too much chicken little and the doom and gloom will be all there is to it, the new hip religious apocalypse (and it bears all the markings of a religious cult). Secondly, if they're wrong on the catastrophe dates again and again, when do you laugh at the claim the sky is falling warming?
Stop believing everything you read in the daily mail. The hockey stick graph is far from debunked. It is still considered one of the seminal works in modern climate science. Pretty much every metastudy and follow-up with independent data agrees that the original work by Mann et al. was correct, despite the earlier discussions about potential cherrypicking of data and problematic statistics. Turns out that the data was good, and other statistical methods corroborate the graph. Anyway, read a summary of the latest work on Wikipedia and follow through to the actual science if you feel so inclined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#2010_onwards
Right, the daily mail, far from debunked, a "seminal work." The graph is so fatally flawed and broken that you merely defending it here proves how fucked up the coverage has been and how committed the pro-CC side is to squelching a truly academic and rigorous look at its history. I'm in a giving mood, so I'll quote a few others that mostly agree with the conclusion but disagree with your opinion.
Dr Jerry Malman NOAA who said "it would take several Kyotos to actually stop the increase" also called the IPCC's use of it "a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it."
"Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick," (Dr Madhav Khandekar)
"The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell's ministry of information" (Professor William Happer Princeton)
"The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques" (Professor David Legates University of Delaware)
"If you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them, then you are not a scientist" (Professor Darrel Ince)
"The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession." (Dr Hendrik Tennekes)
"If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." (Professor Richard Muller, PhD, UCBerkeley)
For the skimmers, the hallmark of an honest climate scientist is to move beyond the fraudulent and discredited graph, lick your wounds for the perhaps permanent harm it's done to climate science, and move on to proving that despite previous publicized failures-as-truth, man really is causing long-term climate destruction.
I've seen this enough to try and guess why this is the case. 1. Supporters think real academic transparency in discussions will never convince people to action, so it's better to smooth over mistakes. The public is too dumb to look past the bad apples so it's best to never mention the flaws. 2. Supporters are so tied to consensus arguments that it's better for publicity to make it appear to be this never-wavering line of pure scientific discovery. Keep the advocacy up front, be personally convinced the science is behind, but don't overly focus on spreading it to others. That's why I say if this is really a problem, the industry and auxiliaries are picking the worst way to show it. You can't even debate market-based approaches (except the favored carbon credit schemes, that bears the official greenie stamp of approval) to solving the problem if the lobby wing is the science wing.
So once Miami has been flooded, the glaciers in the Andes have completely disappeared and the mass extinction of, initially, marine life is well under way... THEN we should act.
One the hype has subsided, perhaps science may resume. I mean you want to convince people to act with coverups and not honesty. Might I suggest not heralding the greatest disgrace to the profession?
|
On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source
It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota.
|
On September 06 2016 23:28 xDaunt wrote:Pretty clear damage control settlement there. The price may actually be rather cheap.
Fox got a good deal here, I've little doubt.
|
On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota.
I am really uncomfortable with the ways that Trump has found to exploit the “self financing his election bid” into funneling money the RNC’s money directly to his own businesses. It seems like a pretty big gap in the election laws that are easy to exploit.
|
On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota.
I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her.
|
On September 07 2016 00:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 23:28 xDaunt wrote:Pretty clear damage control settlement there. The price may actually be rather cheap. Fox got a good deal here, I've little doubt.
Kind of hard to say whether it was a lot for Gretchen's case but a "good deal" would be a lack of sexual harassment and $20 million settlements. If Gretchen's lawyer has a clue, her audiotapes sealed the deal and Fox's desire for them not to go public caused them to fork over some money. $20 million is surely more than Gretchen was due to be paid in salary.
And there will be more lawsuits, headlines and settlements.
|
On September 07 2016 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota. I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her.
Nah, because the Trump corruption/money funneling has been outlined time after time by now and thus doesn't get seized on by the media to any significant degree. I doubt it reaches undecided people.
At this point the story is so played out I'm not sure if funneling money straight into his bank accounts would even be that newsworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
