|
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. |
Some skepticism forming about #resistance hero Scott Dworkin:
Omar Siddiqui couldn’t make it to an August fundraiser in Beverly Hills for the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. But he ponied up the $2,000 ticket price after the group’s senior adviser, Scott Dworkin, sent him a personal invitation.
Months later, Siddiqui, the Democratic challenger to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), was surprised to discover his money—or three of every four dollars of it—had gone to the coffers of consultants and lawyers the group leaned on to fight a libel suit, rather than pushing back against the president.
When told by The Daily Beast how the group had spent his money, Siddiqui was, charitably speaking, not pleased.
“Being an attorney,” he said, “I intend to investigate this further and look forward to receiving a full explanation about the use of donations.”
The Democratic Coalition, one of the many new progressive-minded organizations to bloom in the age of anti-Trump fervor, brought in nearly half a million dollars last year. Its donors include Siddiqui, a pair of Hollywood television producers, a former Real Housewife of Miami, and a member of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors. The vast majority of its funds, however, have come from people whose names don’t make it into Federal Election Commission disclosures: the small, “unitemized” donors who give $200 or less.
It’s what the group has done with its money—not how much it has brought in—that has raised eyebrows among other operatives.
The Democratic Coalition paid more than half of the money it raised last year to its employees or their consulting firms, according to Federal Election Commission records. Dworkin’s Bulldog Finance Group was the chief beneficiary, drawing more than $130,000 from The Democratic Coalition.
The breakdown in 2016, when the Democratic Coalition declared its goal was “making sure that Donald Trump never became President,” was even starker. That year, Dworkin and other staff members received more than 90 percent of all of the Democratic Coalition’s expenditures, either personally or through a consulting company, according to FEC records.
On top of those expenditures, the Democratic Coalition has also spent $127,500 in legal fees since late 2016. Those fees stem from a libel lawsuit brought by a North Dakota doctor who donated $2,700 to the Trump campaign. The Coalition dubbed him a “major benefactor of the Trump campaign” and accused him of ties to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and terrorist elements in that country.
The case was settled last summer under undisclosed terms. But the Democratic Coalition never informed current or prospective donors that their contributions would help cover what have turned out to be six-figure legal expenses. “To ensure we could have as large an impact as possible, we reached an amicable agreement with Dr. Benaissa that includes language prohibiting any of us from speaking about the matter, other than to acknowledge its existence,” a spokesperson for the group said.
The apparent self-dealing and large legal expenditures have left some donors to the organization angry with what they see as a waste of money and energy. It’s also left Democratic operatives worried that money is being sent to organizations that are engaged largely in self-promotion at a time when resources are needed for midterm election contests and sustained advocacy against Trump.
“He is conning people into giving him small-dollar donations so he can pay himself and sustain an organization that gains him credibility,” said one top party operative, who agreed to speak candidly about the Democratic Coalition on condition of anonymity. “It’s a fucking abomination.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cash-for-coalition-against-trump-going-into-consultants-pockets-instead
|
There is actually so much insane news tonight that would just be years-long earth-shattering shit for any other President.
That's two domestic abusers in the WH in one week. One who the details of which are so foul I don't know why he isn't currently institutionalized or imprisoned (she has the scars to prove it). Then there's the Kentucky campaign-chair here. And this isn't even reported on nationally. I wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for my social-media news-addiction.
edit: I'm going crazy. Apparently Trump's campaign-chairs engaging in sex-trafficking is just, like, a thing, because I missed this story, too:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-oklahoma-campaign-chair-plead-guilt-child-sex-trafficking-n822461
Ralph Shortey, a former Oklahoma state senator who last year served as Donald Trump's campaign chair in the state, was meticulous about keeping up his reputation as a pious man, according to several fellow Oklahomans. That reputation, however, has all but disappeared. According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
|
The county’s bandwidth is maxed and we are exhausted with endless scandals and no one caring.
|
On February 10 2018 13:28 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/thebaxterbean/status/962027218674348032There is actually so much insane news tonight that would just be years-long earth-shattering shit for any other President. That's two domestic abusers in the WH in one week. One who the details of which are so foul I don't know why he isn't currently institutionalized or imprisoned (she has the scars to prove it). Then there's the Kentucky campaign-chair here. And this isn't even reported on nationally. I wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for my social-media news-addiction. edit: I'm going crazy. Apparently Trump's campaign-chairs engaging in sex-trafficking is just, like, a thing, because I missed this story, too: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-oklahoma-campaign-chair-plead-guilt-child-sex-trafficking-n822461Show nested quote +Ralph Shortey, a former Oklahoma state senator who last year served as Donald Trump's campaign chair in the state, was meticulous about keeping up his reputation as a pious man, according to several fellow Oklahomans. That reputation, however, has all but disappeared. According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
Everybody knows Republicans don't own pizza shops. Can't possibly be involved with trafficking. Fake news. Sad. /s
|
Nearly half of American voters were okay with having a man who sexually assaults and harasses people and cheats on all three of his wives run the country, so I don't really see any sex-related scandal changing the minds of Trump voters. Or misogyny-related, or racism-related, etc.
|
It's kinda funny how it turns out that "pizza gate" is factually more a republican thing.
|
I'm sure this piece of human shit was a "great, high quality man" or some such, per Donald Trump. I suppose at this point it's established he has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch is. Everything he touches turns to shit. Or maybe he touches it because it was already shit? I don't know. I feel like at this point I should have been taking notes, and keeping track of every last scandal, big and small, that would have ended a career if it was Hillary. But clearly it's A-OK because it's Trump, and he's here to MAGA America again for us.
|
On February 10 2018 13:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Nearly half of American voters were okay with having a man who sexually assaults and harasses people and cheats on all three of his wives run the country, so I don't really see any sex-related scandal changing the minds of Trump voters. Or misogyny-related, or racism-related, etc.
All is good, at least it’s not Hillary. Imagine, she used the wrong email server...
|
On February 10 2018 14:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm sure this piece of human shit was a "great, high quality man" or some such, per Donald Trump. I suppose at this point it's established he has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch is. Everything he touches turns to shit. Or maybe he touches it because it was already shit? I don't know. I feel like at this point I should have been taking notes, and keeping track of every last scandal, big and small, that would have ended a career if it was Hillary. But clearly it's A-OK because it's Trump, and he's here to MAGA America again for us.
I’m sorry to bring it up and it’s gonna be impopular, but i don’t think men and women are held to the same morality standard. There has been sometging like 50 occurences that would have terminated his career had Trump been a woman.
Cheating at age 65+ on your new 30 years old husband with a porn star? Talking about grabbing young hot men by the cock without their consent? Raging at 3am om twitter?
I don’t think people do it on purpose or even realize it, but it’s still really hard to be seen favourably or forgotten anything as a woman at that level of politics. And it’s not especially a D or R thing.
|
On February 10 2018 13:12 tomatriedes wrote:Some skepticism forming about #resistance hero Scott Dworkin: Show nested quote +Omar Siddiqui couldn’t make it to an August fundraiser in Beverly Hills for the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. But he ponied up the $2,000 ticket price after the group’s senior adviser, Scott Dworkin, sent him a personal invitation.
Months later, Siddiqui, the Democratic challenger to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), was surprised to discover his money—or three of every four dollars of it—had gone to the coffers of consultants and lawyers the group leaned on to fight a libel suit, rather than pushing back against the president.
When told by The Daily Beast how the group had spent his money, Siddiqui was, charitably speaking, not pleased.
“Being an attorney,” he said, “I intend to investigate this further and look forward to receiving a full explanation about the use of donations.”
The Democratic Coalition, one of the many new progressive-minded organizations to bloom in the age of anti-Trump fervor, brought in nearly half a million dollars last year. Its donors include Siddiqui, a pair of Hollywood television producers, a former Real Housewife of Miami, and a member of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors. The vast majority of its funds, however, have come from people whose names don’t make it into Federal Election Commission disclosures: the small, “unitemized” donors who give $200 or less.
It’s what the group has done with its money—not how much it has brought in—that has raised eyebrows among other operatives.
The Democratic Coalition paid more than half of the money it raised last year to its employees or their consulting firms, according to Federal Election Commission records. Dworkin’s Bulldog Finance Group was the chief beneficiary, drawing more than $130,000 from The Democratic Coalition.
The breakdown in 2016, when the Democratic Coalition declared its goal was “making sure that Donald Trump never became President,” was even starker. That year, Dworkin and other staff members received more than 90 percent of all of the Democratic Coalition’s expenditures, either personally or through a consulting company, according to FEC records.
On top of those expenditures, the Democratic Coalition has also spent $127,500 in legal fees since late 2016. Those fees stem from a libel lawsuit brought by a North Dakota doctor who donated $2,700 to the Trump campaign. The Coalition dubbed him a “major benefactor of the Trump campaign” and accused him of ties to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and terrorist elements in that country.
The case was settled last summer under undisclosed terms. But the Democratic Coalition never informed current or prospective donors that their contributions would help cover what have turned out to be six-figure legal expenses. “To ensure we could have as large an impact as possible, we reached an amicable agreement with Dr. Benaissa that includes language prohibiting any of us from speaking about the matter, other than to acknowledge its existence,” a spokesperson for the group said.
The apparent self-dealing and large legal expenditures have left some donors to the organization angry with what they see as a waste of money and energy. It’s also left Democratic operatives worried that money is being sent to organizations that are engaged largely in self-promotion at a time when resources are needed for midterm election contests and sustained advocacy against Trump.
“He is conning people into giving him small-dollar donations so he can pay himself and sustain an organization that gains him credibility,” said one top party operative, who agreed to speak candidly about the Democratic Coalition on condition of anonymity. “It’s a fucking abomination.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/cash-for-coalition-against-trump-going-into-consultants-pockets-instead
The guy has been bilking people since Trump got elected with the help of MSNBC and Joy Reid. The whole point of the #Resistance was to demoralize and minimize a serious movement.
|
On February 10 2018 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2018 14:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm sure this piece of human shit was a "great, high quality man" or some such, per Donald Trump. I suppose at this point it's established he has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch is. Everything he touches turns to shit. Or maybe he touches it because it was already shit? I don't know. I feel like at this point I should have been taking notes, and keeping track of every last scandal, big and small, that would have ended a career if it was Hillary. But clearly it's A-OK because it's Trump, and he's here to MAGA America again for us. I’m sorry to bring it up and it’s gonna be impopular, but i don’t think men and women are held to the same morality standard. There has been sometging like 50 occurences that would have terminated his career had Trump been a woman. Cheating at age 65+ on your new 30 years old husband with a porn star? Talking about grabbing young hot men by the cock without their consent? Raging at 3am om twitter? I don’t think people do it on purpose or even realize it, but it’s still really hard to be seen favourably or forgotten anything as a woman at that level of politics. And it’s not especially a D or R thing.
While yes, men and women are obviously held to differrent standards because of our instructional sexism, but you really think Obama would have been ok with all these scandals? You think Franken was? It is a D vs R thing.
|
On February 10 2018 23:32 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2018 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 10 2018 14:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm sure this piece of human shit was a "great, high quality man" or some such, per Donald Trump. I suppose at this point it's established he has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch is. Everything he touches turns to shit. Or maybe he touches it because it was already shit? I don't know. I feel like at this point I should have been taking notes, and keeping track of every last scandal, big and small, that would have ended a career if it was Hillary. But clearly it's A-OK because it's Trump, and he's here to MAGA America again for us. I’m sorry to bring it up and it’s gonna be impopular, but i don’t think men and women are held to the same morality standard. There has been sometging like 50 occurences that would have terminated his career had Trump been a woman. Cheating at age 65+ on your new 30 years old husband with a porn star? Talking about grabbing young hot men by the cock without their consent? Raging at 3am om twitter? I don’t think people do it on purpose or even realize it, but it’s still really hard to be seen favourably or forgotten anything as a woman at that level of politics. And it’s not especially a D or R thing. While yes, men and women are obviously held to differrent standards because of our instructional sexism, but you really think Obama would have been ok with all these scandals? You think Franken was? It is a D vs R thing.
I don't even know if it is that. I don't think that Bush 2 would have been fine with these scandals either. It seems to be mostly a Trump thing. For inexplicable reasons, Trumps base doesn't care that he is a sexist, racist, corrupt asshole.
|
On February 10 2018 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2018 14:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm sure this piece of human shit was a "great, high quality man" or some such, per Donald Trump. I suppose at this point it's established he has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch is. Everything he touches turns to shit. Or maybe he touches it because it was already shit? I don't know. I feel like at this point I should have been taking notes, and keeping track of every last scandal, big and small, that would have ended a career if it was Hillary. But clearly it's A-OK because it's Trump, and he's here to MAGA America again for us. I’m sorry to bring it up and it’s gonna be impopular, but i don’t think men and women are held to the same morality standard. There has been sometging like 50 occurences that would have terminated his career had Trump been a woman. Cheating at age 65+ on your new 30 years old husband with a porn star? Talking about grabbing young hot men by the cock without their consent? Raging at 3am om twitter? I don’t think people do it on purpose or even realize it, but it’s still really hard to be seen favourably or forgotten anything as a woman at that level of politics. And it’s not especially a D or R thing.
I am certain that you very much believe this to be true and I offer you my sympathies.
|
On February 10 2018 10:02 IgnE wrote:
does anyone here prefer the winter olympics to the summer olympics?
Hockey alone > everything in summer olympics.
|
United States24741 Posts
I think we need to do some studies into the matter. How to people react to identical scandals depending on if the politician is a man or a woman. It might be a bit unethical though because you couldn't really explain to the participants what you were looking for until the study was over (but I'm okay with that!).
Gender definitely causes people to react differently to improprieties. The classic example (although it's getting better) is how a student and teacher having sexual relations is hilarious if the student is male and the teacher is female but rape if the teacher is male and the student is female.
|
On February 10 2018 23:48 micronesia wrote:
I think we need to do some studies into the matter. How to people react to identical scandals depending on if the politician is a man or a woman. It might be a bit unethical though because you couldn't really explain to the participants what you were looking for until the study was over (but I'm okay with that!).
Gender definitely causes people to react differently to improprieties. The classic example (although it's getting better) is how a student and teacher having sexual relations is hilarious if the student is male and the teacher is female but rape if the teacher is male and the student is female.
in short term studies (like the ones taking an hour or less that are based on questionnaires and info and suhc) it's routine and permissible (with restrictions and oversight of course) to not explain exactly what the study is about until afterwards, so that part wouldn't be a problem.
making up a basic form of such a study would be very feasible; of course there's all sorts of variables you don't expect that can change results, and a single modest sized study doesn't mean too much on its own, but it's a good starting point.
There might already be such studies, I don't know; there's a lot of studies out there, and there's definitely some research on various issues related to -isms and how they affect voting.
|
|
|
you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and some strange counterbias of your own.
people are viewed as individuals, but there are observable effects due to race/gender. that's the classic error of false dichotomy you're making.
also, while that's an interestin gstudy, it's one study; and there's a huge number of variables that can affect the result; so saying oops as if that study disproves the thesis means you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
United States24741 Posts
That's actually pretty funny and I'm glad you pointed to it. However, that 'experiment' doesn't do much to proved whether our society has this problem or not. There are way too many outside influences there.
Has anyone here ever considered that maybe people view other people as individuals with their own unique personalities and opinions, instead of viewing them as members of a certain race and gender?
Radical idea, I know... I'll address this question seriously even though it was clearly intended to be rude and obnoxious. Yes, I've considered that some people view others as individuals regardless of their race and gender. But your implication that most or all people don't inadvertently judge people based on their race and gender... no I don't agree with it.
|
Watched the clip they included in there.
Well shit, it actually works really well in reverse. Great project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
