Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on June 21, 2016, 11:57:38 PM
-
“@rebeccaballhaus: Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kids https://t.co/y4yboQ2lm0”
Trump currently has $1.3m on hand. Ben Carson has $1.8m and Cruz over $6m.
Ya'll do realize you've been conned right? The lifelong Democrat is running to do two things: act as a stalking horse for his good buddy Hillary to ensure she wins, and to put money into his pocket. Which he will donate to more Democrats as soon as the race is over, just like he always has.
The whole campaign is a scam, and the suckers who fell for it have guaranteed a victory for Hillary. Good job guys. I'm sure as soon as he gets back from opening a golf course in Scotland he'll stop pimping gun control and get right on building that wall and deporting the illegals who built his crappy hotels.
-
“@kenvogel: CAMPAIGN STAFF, per May @FEC reports:
@HillaryClinton: 685
@realDonaldTrump: 69”
Sounds like a guy who's really in it to win it. This campaign is being managed as well as Trump U was before it kept getting sued for fraud.
-
“@JuddLegum: In May, the Trump campaign spent more renting out his Mar-A-Lago club ($423,371.70) than his entire payroll ($321,586)”
Totally a serious presidential campaign. No way this is a scam.
-
But mah wall!!!!
-
Make America Grift Again!
-
To add a few facts to the wild speculation. Federal Election Law requires that he pay a business for services even if he owns it. Now he could go pay some other business' or he can use his own, but he can't legally have his own business provide free or even discounted services to his campaign. He would by law have to pay the same as if someone else was renting his property or using services provided by a company he owns.
-
There you go with your damned facts again mudding up the narrative de jour.
-
I thought Trump said he wouldn't take donations because he is rich and doesn't need the money.
-
There you go with your damned facts again mudding up the narrative de jour.
And being the gambling man he is, I bed dollars to donuts he's betting on being the nominee and having donors/the GOP refill his campaign coffers....thus making millions.
-
So he has reached his financial ceiling is what you guys are saying?
-
So he has reached his financial ceiling is what you guys are saying?
I don't know if you could say he's hit the ceiling this early, before the convention. However any way you slice it, paying his own businesses or not, the fact that he has so little money in the war chest probably means the election is already lost.
-
Probably expected more in donations than he got. Regarding what MikeB said, he didn't have to pick his own properties and business for his campaign. I'm willing to bet cheaper alternatives exist. I'm very sure, and the numbers back up, he directed as much money to himself as he legally could get away with.
I dislike all the candidates on the field, and am voting third party. Yes, Trump is a lifetime NYC liberal that leans Democrat, but I wouldn't peg him as being a party loyalist. To either party. Guy is in this for ego and feeling important. If he can make money off telling people what they want to hear, sure. It's hardly a shock that he'd lie about self-funding his campaign when in fact he's in it to MAKE money off running. Remember, he's nowhere as rich as he claims to be and majority of his wealth is tied up. I'm sure he has enough in liquid state to live very well, but he has made a career off getting other people to risk their money for his gain.
-
This is all part of the media panic about trump. He isn't controlled by DC elites and he is a major risk to their lobbyists, hence he must be savaged however possible.
Never mind that another slant on this might be "trump doesn't buy the election" - oh no, the fact that he isn't taking in billions from Goldman Sachs is proof that he's unfit to lead.
Bad press for trump is simply more evidence as to how much damage he will do to ruling elites. And ruling elites are the problem.
-
He wasn't my nominee, but he's what the Republican voters want, apparently. Given that the Democratic candidates are far more objectionable, and the presumptive one is more corrupt, I'm not sure I should care about this.
Men without chests, etc.
-
He wasn't my nominee, but he's what the Republican voters want, apparently. Given that the Democratic candidates are far more objectionable, and the presumptive one is more corrupt, I'm not sure I should care about this.
Men without chests, etc.
You don't care that the 2016 GOP candidate is essentially a reboot of the Music Man? It's not a concern to you that the party has been taken in by a con artist, and that his promise of magic beans will give the election away to Hillary? All righty then.
-
To add a few facts to the wild speculation. Federal Election Law requires that he pay a business for services even if he owns it. Now he could go pay some other business' or he can use his own, but he can't legally have his own business provide free or even discounted services to his campaign. He would by law have to pay the same as if someone else was renting his property or using services provided by a company he owns.
Unless the feds are dictating what he spent his the donor's money on, that's not really relevant.
In May, he spent ~$208,000 on hats.
He spent ~$694,000 on t-shirts, mugs, and stickers.
He spent ~$120,000 on ads.
Clinton's campaign plans to spend $117 million in television advertising prior to Election Day. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters have committed to $700,000.
Trump's campaign spent just $6.7 million last quarter, less than half the $14.1 million Clinton's campaign spent.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/21/the-trump-campaign-spent-208000-on-hats-in-may-n2181535
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/donald-trump-spending/
-
This is all part of the media panic about trump. He isn't controlled by DC elites and he is a major risk to their lobbyists, hence he must be savaged however possible.
Never mind that another slant on this might be "trump doesn't buy the election" - oh no, the fact that he isn't taking in billions from Goldman Sachs is proof that he's unfit to lead.
Bad press for trump is simply more evidence as to how much damage he will do to ruling elites. And ruling elites are the problem.
Holy poly kritter, DeSelby, you sound like you're supporting Trump?!!?!? Are you? I mean, you could simply be laying it out like you see it .... but you could be supporting him.
Which is it?
I'm not sure which would be worse ..... or better ...... or if there is either in this case.
-
You don't care that the 2016 GOP candidate is essentially a reboot of the Music Man? It's not a concern to you that the party has been taken in by a con artist, and that his promise of magic beans will give the election away to Hillary? All righty then.
By "this" I mean what he's doing with the money. In the grand scheme (and I do mean scheme) of the 2016 election season, that's a small matter.
As the record* shows, I'm much more concerned that Trump fooled a plurality of GOP voters into thinking Cruz is Hillary Clinton, and he's Ronald Reagan. Aren't you?
*That oh-so-official record of Comments Made on APS
-
By "this" I mean what he's doing with the money. In the grand scheme (and I do mean scheme) of the 2016 election season, that's a small matter.
As the record* shows, I'm much more concerned that Trump fooled a plurality of GOP voters into thinking Cruz is Hillary Clinton, and he's Ronald Reagan. Aren't you?
*That oh-so-official record of Comments Made on APS
Meh, it seems like we're both looking at the same problem, just different proofs that it is a problem.
-
I figure if Trump embezzles all the money, and goes on to be a good president (I won't say a great president, since good would be a vast improvement), then the graft will certainly be less significant than the fact that Washington and Jefferson owned human beings. If he runs a campaign of perfect probity, but goes on to lose, or to be Obama 2.0 (Bigger, Oranger, Just as Competent), we'll wish we'd gotten the Good President Swindler version of Trump.
Either way, a small matter. Not that it shouldn't be looked into, and judgments made accordingly.
Now the misdeeds and crimes of Bill Clinton's wife, on the other hand... :mad:
-
Unless the feds are dictating what he spent his the donor's money on, that's not really relevant.
In May, he spent ~$208,000 on hats.
He spent ~$694,000 on t-shirts, mugs, and stickers.
He spent ~$120,000 on ads.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/21/the-trump-campaign-spent-208000-on-hats-in-may-n2181535
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/donald-trump-spending/
And that means what exactly?
The relavency is that it appears people are trying to claim it's a scandal that he paid himself, the law requires he do so if he wants to use his own business. Now sure he could have made the choice to use other third party services, but it isn't required. Since he was mostly if not more or less fully self funding anyway during the primary I'm not sure where anyone has a leg to stand on trying to criticize him over this.
-
Lol Trumpkins. ;/
-
In May, he spent ~$208,000 on hats.
He spent ~$694,000 on t-shirts, mugs, and stickers.
He spent ~$120,000 on ads.
I'd consider hats, t-shirts, mugs, and stickers to be advertising. The $120k was for online advertising alone.
He's avoiding the "mainstream media", at least for now.
Hmm...
My thinking: As long as the people he gives them away to actually wear them, I'd consider hats and t-shirts to be a more sound investment than television advertising. Television advertising is both expensive - production and showing, and transitive - they're gone when you stop paying.
Meanwhile, hats and t-shirts can last for months and even years. I still have a Dan Sullivan(our senator) t-shirt in very good condition.
Another factor, I think, is that the media, especially the news, is currently giving him as much coverage as people can stand, in my opinion. Why should he pay for what he's getting for free?
As for his using his own companies for services - as long as he's donated more to his own campaign than what he's funneled, I don't care. It's likely that he uses his own services because they're the ones he's familiar with.
-
I'd consider hats, t-shirts, mugs, and stickers to be advertising. The $120k was for online advertising alone.
He's avoiding the "mainstream media", at least for now.
Hmm...
My thinking: As long as the people he gives them away to actually wear them, I'd consider hats and t-shirts to be a more sound investment than television advertising. Television advertising is both expensive - production and showing, and transitive - they're gone when you stop paying.
Meanwhile, hats and t-shirts can last for months and even years. I still have a Dan Sullivan(our senator) t-shirt in very good condition.
Another factor, I think, is that the media, especially the news, is currently giving him as much coverage as people can stand, in my opinion. Why should he pay for what he's getting for free?
As for his using his own companies for services - as long as he's donated more to his own campaign than what he's funneled, I don't care. It's likely that he uses his own services because they're the ones he's familiar with.
He hasn't had to spend money with the main stream media. They have been giving him all the coverage he needs. All he has to do is say stuff about enforcing immigration laws or something similar and the media acts like it is a scandal.
-
He hasn't had to spend money with the main stream media. They have been giving him all the coverage he needs. All he has to do is say stuff about enforcing immigration laws or something similar and the media acts like it is a scandal.
Did you read my second from last paragraph? I'll repeat it: "Another factor, I think, is that the media, especially the news, is currently giving him as much coverage as people can stand, in my opinion. Why should he pay for what he's getting for free?"
-
Holy poly kritter, DeSelby, you sound like you're supporting Trump?!!?!? Are you? I mean, you could simply be laying it out like you see it .... but you could be supporting him.
Which is it?
I'm not sure which would be worse ..... or better ...... or if there is either in this case.
I do support him over Clinton, no question.