|
Is anyone going to be at all surprised when it turns out Trump's general election run was just a massive graft machine funneling tens of millions in donor money to Trump's various lovely businesses for "services rendered to the Trump campaign"?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
I bet Trump drops out before the convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is anyone going to be at all surprised when it turns out Trump's general election run was just a massive graft machine funneling tens of millions in donor money to Trump's various lovely businesses for "services rendered to the Trump campaign"? No. I mean, the MSM will feign surprise, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is anyone going to be at all surprised when it turns out Trump's general election run was just a massive graft machine funneling tens of millions in donor money to Trump's various lovely businesses for "services rendered to the Trump campaign"? That was my assumption going in. Trump saw all the swag everyone else was making on scam presidential runs and wanted that action for himself. He has never had any interest in actually being President.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I bet Trump drops out before the convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
There's no way Trump drops before he's paid himself back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Serious talk, what happens if that happens? Or sometime between the convention and the election? Trump's short attention span has got to get the better of him eventually. If he drops out before the convention, Cruz is the nominee. if he drops out after the convention, the RNC has to select a replacement nominee. This has never been done before and would be total chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Serious talk, what happens if that happens? Or sometime between the convention and the election? Trump's short attention span has got to get the better of him eventually. Before the convention, the delegates are unbound and can choose another nominee. After the convention, it gets more complicated. If there is enough time, they could poll the delegates, otherwise it comes down to a small circle within the party eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Lmao he's just been paying himself rent and for services rendered with public funds. What are the chances he hosed something up and can get hit with election fraud or financial fraud charges?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
That's 20% of his outlays for the period 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Crain posted:Lmao he's just been paying himself rent and for services rendered with public funds. The web he's weaving is so tangled that he'll be long dead before they have enough to bring charges
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:The web he's weaving is so tangled that he'll be long dead before they have enough to bring charges For the last time, it's NOT a weave, it's his natural hair!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Jesus how do you spend that much at a commercial tower? Is that rent or some kind of convention space? If the latter, that's an absurd sum. Would paying rent be illegal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Trump has taken the scampaign to its logical end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Jon Stewart picked the worst year to leave. E: Pictured here is Jon at this very moment 
Boon fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
KittenofDoom posted:Jesus how do you spend that much at a commercial tower? Is that rent or some kind of convention space? If the latter, that's an absurd sum. Would paying rent be illegal? I have to assume it's for office space and maybe renting meeting rooms. I also wouldn't be surprised if he just charges himself $XXXX.XX for every hour he's in his office doing campaign stuff. Boon posted:Jon Stewart picked the worst year to leave Stewart would have keeled over dead months ago if he were still on air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
By overcharging himself for campaign expenses at his hotels and companies Trump can "contribute" quite a lot of money that he immediately recoups. That might be valuable if he's approaching big donors and he can say "I've already put in 100M (that I'm getting right back by charging the campaign 100M above cost for Trump services)" I guess that looks like it's just a scam but I'd bet that's just SOP for any Trump venture. He's actually running for president just like he'd build some condos and tricking the investors and funneling money back to himself is exactly how he'd build some condos. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Hahaha it's like Trump saw the string of Colbert episodes about money in elections and how easily manipulated they are and was like I can do that. Yeah, more and more it's looking like Trump is gonna get stripped at the RNC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Radar and microwaves are no use for killing people, and airplanes and rockets are more regulated than guns. Even radar, and any sort of microwave transmitter past the one in an oven, are more regulated than guns. When radar was first pioneered it was straight-up introduced as a potential avenue for the creation of a sci-fi "death ray" type weapon. Just because that particular endeavor ultimately failed and the tech ended up better serving other, more generally benign, ends doesn't negate the fact that the US and British governments both plowed some cash and time in the late 30s-mid 40s into seeing if they couldn't at least turn it into an anti-personnel device. Remember, War of the Worlds was first published in 1898 and [extremely dangerous] radiation experiments had already been going on since before the turn of the 20th Century. When you consider that and throw in what was also going on with the Manhattan Project and similar efforts at the time, it shouldn't be surprising that people were eager to develop microwave and radar tech into hypothetical 'targeted energy' or radiation-based weapons virtually as soon as it made the scene. And you could also make the argument that radar tech and ballistics tech had fundamental impacts on each other's development and trajectories, particularly in radar's most formative decades in the 50's-70's. We simply wouldn't have today's arsenal or civilian/municipal radar technology without the US's almost 70-year legacy of radar-guided bomb development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Crain posted:Stewart would have keeled over dead months ago if he were still on air. I bet he thanks god every day that he quit when he did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Hahaha it's like Trump saw the string of Colbert episodes about money in elections and how easily manipulated they are and was like I can do that. I was really hoping for Cruz to lose it and just start strangling Trump on stage halfway through (one of) his speech(s).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Riptor posted:I mean I'm with you here but wasn't modern rocketry started with the V2 and von braun It was the Nazis that invested heavily in rocketry, but before that I think most of the interest was as a way to go to space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:if he drops out after the convention, the RNC has to select a replacement nominee. This has never been done before and would be total chaos. If anyone is interested in how this would go down, NPR's politics podcast covered it for both parties this past week. http://www.npr.org/player/embed/482398759/482400582 Basically, all delegates have to gather again and vote. In other words, total chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Hahaha it's like Trump saw the string of Colbert episodes about money in elections and how easily manipulated they are and was like I can do that. I would be heartbroken if this happened. He needs to stay lashed to the GOP for maximum publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I know think that Lewandowski getting fired was all part of the plan similar to Roger Stone. After seeing his interview on CNN, I think he is still on board. Yes, he was moved out of his position of power but I think they decided to do it this way to maximize news stories. Now, everyone wanted to talk to him today and he spent the entire time setting up Trump as being in control. He probably got hired immediately as contributor on several networks (at least Fox News). Hell, he went out and talked to all the major networks within a few hours. We might find out soon that he has been hired by one of the pro-Trump PACs. One of the issues recently has been that Trump's surrogates were lost on message. Now Lewandowski is one of the people leading the message because he was crafting the message before. While Stone might be there for the crazy info wars audience, Lewandowski is now there for the "mainstream news" audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:If anyone is interested in how this would go down, NPR's politics podcast covered it for both parties this past week. This is when Cruz starts taking out the remaining candidates one by one Horror Movie style. Then he'll truly earn the title of Zodiac Killer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:By overcharging himself for campaign expenses at his hotels and companies Trump can "contribute" quite a lot of money that he immediately recoups. That might be valuable if he's approaching big donors and he can say "I've already put in 100M (that I'm getting right back by charging the campaign 100M above cost for Trump services)" The best part of all this is that we've been smirking at this possibility at work (money laundering investigator for a big ol' multinational bank) because it's the way you launder money if you think you're a genius but actually only learned about the process via Breaking Bad. Next we'll hear that Manafort called in favors from a few Mideast terror financiers in his Rolodex who made a fake almond growers for trump org and donated a few million drawn off ag loans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
So a Facebook friend is claiming that the Democrats are refusing to compromise on gun control, and as evidence pointed to the fact that two of the gun control amendments rejected today had Democrats voting Nay and Republicans voting Yea. I looked it up, and it seems he's right--the Democrats voted Nay on both the Corryn and Grassley amendments. Why did they do that? I could understand voting against increasing the power of the no-fly list, but if that was the motivation for rejecting Corryn, then why did so many Democrats vote for the Feinstein-Kirk amendment? And what was wrong with the background checks amendment put forth by Grassley?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:And what was wrong with the background checks amendment put forth by Grassley? It was proposed by a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Hahaha it's like Trump saw the string of Colbert episodes about money in elections and how easily manipulated they are and was like I can do that. Yeah the RNC will offer him an out to save face since he has no interest in real campaign. So, he'll drop out before the convention and be offered a speaking spot at the convention in an attempt to bring his supporters into the fold. That's the only winning the GOP or Trump can do here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Crain posted:This is when Cruz starts taking out the remaining candidates one by one Horror Movie style. "How odd, only 559 delegates showed up for the vote..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So a Facebook friend is claiming that the Democrats are refusing to compromise on gun control, and as evidence pointed to the fact that two of the gun control amendments rejected today had Democrats voting Nay and Republicans voting Yea. I looked it up, and it seems he's right--the Democrats voted Nay on both the Corryn and Grassley amendments. Why did they do that? I could understand voting against increasing the power of the no-fly list, but if that was the motivation for rejecting Corryn, then why did so many Democrats vote for the Feinstein-Kirk amendment? And what was wrong with the background checks amendment put forth by Grassley? It was worse than nothing. By requiring the FBI to affirmatively act to ban after 72 hours, given the current state of the firearm background check system, it literally provides a fig leaf to protect the status quo while giving Republicans a weapon to beat Democrats with when the topic inevitably comes up again ("See? Gun control doesn't work!")
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It was proposed by a Republican. That was my conclusion as well. The Corryn one was great. It addresses my single objection to use of the terror watchlist/no-fly/whatever by adding in a formal hearing to confirm or reject the denial. Grassley just wanted to add funding and data to NICS which is an excellent idea that isn't new and has lots of support from the gun community as well: http://www.fixnics.org/ So pretty much Javid posted:the number of people on both sides who are willing to work towards a compromise that is agreeable to both parties are a tiny minority as compared to the people who just want the result of a legislative session to piss off the other side Javid fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The best part of all this is that we've been smirking at this possibility at work (money laundering investigator for a big ol' multinational bank) because it's the way you launder money if you think you're a genius but actually only learned about the process via Breaking Bad. Next we'll hear that Manafort called in favors from a few Mideast terror financiers in his Rolodex who made a fake almond growers for trump org and donated a few million drawn off ag loans. Is there any chance Manafort gets arrested/indicted for all the poo poo he's pulled abroad? I mean the guy almost certainly has violated the FCPA and violating the FCPA is a great way to permanently ruin your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It was worse than nothing. By requiring the FBI to affirmatively act to ban after 72 hours, given the current state of the firearm background check system, it literally provides a fig leaf to protect the status quo while giving Republicans a weapon to beat Democrats with when the topic inevitably comes up again ("See? Gun control doesn't work!") What is the issue with this? The government has to actually prove in a court of law that a person who has been convicted of no crime should be denied a right (because if they had been previously convicted, they would have been denied on those grounds instead with the denial not subject to appeal) A lack of due process with the terror watchlist is the single primary objection gun people have to its being added as a criteria for failing a background check. This amendment would've addressed that objection and (nominally) been a compromise acceptable to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It was the Nazis that invested heavily in rocketry, but before that I think most of the interest was as a way to go to space. I believe von Braun basically used the Nazis wanting ICBMs to fund his rocketry research.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Javid posted:That was my conclusion as well. Bullshit, until the NRA stops stonewalling on a fully digital system for background checks and tracking purchases, more of them are useless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Shillary posted:Bullshit, until the NRA stops stonewalling on a fully digital system for background checks and tracking purchases, more of them are useless. The other problem is even if a system was passed, the NRA has made it easy for gun stores to slip through the cracks. Our current paper system basically doesn't require to turn much in, and many times what they turn in is mixed up or completely illegible. NPR did a piece on how they get a lot of records that are written on toilet paper, or don't get the records until the store owner dies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Shillary posted:Bullshit, until the NRA stops stonewalling on a fully digital system for background checks and tracking purchases, more of them are useless. What, do you think the NICS system is a few 1950's era secretaries combing through filing cabinets? This discussion would actually go places if willful ignorance wasn't held as a point of pride.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Yeah the RNC will offer him an out to save face since he has no interest in real campaign. So, he'll drop out before the convention and be offered a speaking spot at the convention in an attempt to bring his supporters into the fold. That assumes that Trump isn't a raving narcissist who thinks that he can actually win. Or at least drag this out for another few months getting high off the attention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:33
|
|
