Donors changing their tune on Donald Trump

[bendog]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media.

Addressing the money is treating the symptom instead of the disease. That's why every campaign finance reform and Supreme Court decision of the past half century has had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents.

Congress has single digit approval, yet the House has a 98 percent re-election rate, and the Senate has 80 percent.

Stop treating the headaches and do something about the flu.

What do I mean by that?

Well, all you have to do is ask yourself why a special interest gives so much money to a politician. Why do they spend so many billions on lobbying and campaign donations?



What. Are. They. Buying?



Answer: Power.



Therefore, if you want to stop the money, take away the power.

If you want to stop the concentration of money in the hands of a few, you have to stop the concentration of POWER in the hands of a few.


It just baffles the shit out of me why the idiots have not figured this out. The goddam liberals whine and whine and whine about money in politics, and then they go and centralize more power at the top. Example, ObamaCare.

They have given our very HEALTH CARE over to a few hands. And you just know they are going to be so pissed when that shit gets captured and abused by special interests. But they STILL won't fucking figure out to STOP CONCENTRATING SO MUCH POWER.

Well, take Reagan. Undoubtedly he wanted the govt to have less power. Not all bad. But an unintended consequence was the concentration of wealth by banks and the demise of unions and lowered wages.

 

[g5000]

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about Trump's donors or Cruz's donors or anyone's donors. It's like arguing over what color firehose to use while the house is burning down.

 

[TNHarley]

While he did not keep his word, I don't think 3K dollars is going to make a billionaire throw away his integrity or intentions..

 

[bendog]

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about Trump's donors or Cruz's donors or anyone's donors. It's like arguing over what color firehose to use while the house is burning down.

I agree. I'd say CI only made matters worse, and there's a bipartisan fix to be had .. if we had someone willing to lead, but it's really in no party's interest to do so. It's only in the country's interest.

So, is Trump a patriot and dealmaker? As were Reagan and JFK in dealing with a congress where their party was not in total control. And frankly Poppy Bush was not awful in that regard.

Or does he simply want to back door into being another W or Obama. Or is he even worse than those?

 

[g5000]

Well, take Reagan. Undoubtedly he wanted the govt to have less power. Not all bad. But an unintended consequence was the concentration of wealth by banks and the demise of unions and lowered wages.

The banks needed some deregulation. Glass-Steagall limited them geographically, making them susceptible to regional economic fluctuations. When the Steel Belt began rusting, the localized banks were being dragged under with the mills. That's not good for anyone.

I'm not saying all of Glass-Steagall had to go, but parts of it were outdated.

However, that deregulation did create a crack into which a wedge was driven which eventually led to the total implosion of GS.

 

[g5000]

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about Trump's donors or Cruz's donors or anyone's donors. It's like arguing over what color firehose to use while the house is burning down.

I agree. I'd say CI only made matters worse

You can't make a 98 percent re-election rate worse. It's literally impossible.

 

[bendog]

Well, take Reagan. Undoubtedly he wanted the govt to have less power. Not all bad. But an unintended consequence was the concentration of wealth by banks and the demise of unions and lowered wages.

The banks needed some deregulation. Glass-Steagall limited them geographically, making them susceptible to regional economic fluctuations. When the Steel Belt began rusting, the localized banks were being dragged under with the mills. That's not good for anyone.

I don't disagree. We'll never get money out of politics, and I think the bankers like Hamilton and the slave owning gentleman farmers like Washington and Jefferson approved.

Reagan's core belief was govt's purpose was to allow free markets to operate with transparency. The current gop has no interest in that. Neither does Hillary. I think Warren and Bernie want to control markets.

 

[bendog]

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about Trump's donors or Cruz's donors or anyone's donors. It's like arguing over what color firehose to use while the house is burning down.

I agree. I'd say CI only made matters worse

You can't make a 98 percent re-election rate worse. It's literally impossible.

Well yeah you can, and the scotus did. Look at whose left congress. The dealmakers.

 

[g5000]

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about Trump's donors or Cruz's donors or anyone's donors. It's like arguing over what color firehose to use while the house is burning down.

I agree. I'd say CI only made matters worse

You can't make a 98 percent re-election rate worse. It's literally impossible.

Well yeah you can, and the scotus did. Look at whose left congress. The dealmakers.

That is not because of CI. Congress and America were becoming polarized long before that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

The NRA is all for making background checks more effective by getting people with mental problems listed on the NICS so they can be stopped from buying a gun. Why couldn't Congress do that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

What is CI?

 

[g5000]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

What is CI?

Citizens United.

CU!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

What is CI?

Citizens United.

CU!

I wondered if I was lost!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

What is CI?

Citizens United.

CU!

I wondered if I was lost!

To me "CI" is "Confidential Informant".

 

[bendog]

The money is the money. There's nothing we can really do about it, because we all should know that there's really no way to amend the constitution .. not anymore, what with the money and mass media. It may be possible to craft something parts of both parties can accept to form a filibuster proof maj, and which the scotus (most importantly Kennedy) can now accept after seeing how terribly wrong he got politics in CI. Leaders on both sides, including Mitt, know the system is totally dysfunctional, and serves only the few.

But the question I have is about the Donald. Is he a dealmaker, a demigod or a buffoon? Morning Joe asked him last week about what he'd do to expand background checks, which a supermaj approve of, and which even a maj in the gop approve of. The Donald said he'd get the NRA and congress in a room and work something out. Well, we already know the NRA will tell congress not only to fock itself but also tell congressmen and senators that if they try to pass background checks, the NRA will primary them out of their seats. So, a dealmaker ... he cannot always be.

Demigod? Will he simply take the politically possible and claim any position on any issue as his own, regardless of what he actually thinks is best for the country?

Is he just a clown who knows 40-50% of the 25% is just so angry they won't ever compromise over anything, even if compromise gives them 60% of what they want?

What is CI?

Citizens United.

CU!

I don't mean to imply CI is some huge bugaboo foistered on us by the 1%. It's not. Pols in both parties, who are interested in more that simply retaining personal power, agree it was hinderance. McCain Feingold was at best a flawed law. The basic premise of CI is that any amt of money from any source is not, in itself, corrupting ... so long as voters know the money's source. As an ivory tower view of someone like Kennedy (who gave us gay marriage despite a maj of states not wanting to go there), that's true.

But the dirty reality is that pols in both parties don't want to disclose who's giving the money.

We can limit it or disclose it. But getting 60 senators to agree to either is heavy lifting that is no longer possible. And may never again be possible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump wasn't going to be beholding to anyone, because he didn't have to take anyone's money?

Is that one more Trump lie?

 

[mikegriffith1]

For those who think Trump is a RINO or a stealth Democrat, you might wanna consider the fact that in 1988 Trump was out there defending Dan Quayle at a time when real RINOs were dissing Quayle.

I have several complaints about Trump, but I'm starting to understand why ardent conservatives like Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin have endorsed him.

 

[candycorn]

Donors?

I thought he was "self funding" and beholden to nobody....

So much for that legend.

Damn, you folks really look pathetic when you start getting so petty.

I think it makes us look confused...he said he would do one thing and is doing another.

Now you're just a liar, he's always said he would accept contributions form individuals.

As of Oct 2015, my bold.

Trump has taken in 73,942 contributions, a total that surpasses several of his GOP rivals, despite the billionaire businessman’s early pledge to finance his own campaign. Financial reports filed last week also show that more than 70 percent of the $3.9 million he raised from July through September came from people giving $200 or less. That rate of small-donor contributions is second only to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s in the Democratic race.

The average Trump contribution was $50.46, his campaign said.

Trump Attracts Enthusiasm From Small Donors

Many of Trump’s small-dollar donors may in fact have been buying thousands of hats, which Trump’s campaign spent nearly $750,000 to buy along with other merchandise last quarter.​

Trump’s total raised from under-$200 donors (whose names do not need to be publicly disclosed) compared to his merchandise costs suggests a large number of his donors may actually be buying something.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/90948/how-donald-trump-capped-off-his-fundraising

Do you really think any of these donations are changing the trajectory of his campaign or he wouldn't have spent his own money if people didn't donate?

Basically you're defining why he is rich....

Do you really think that if Hillary were saying she wasn't going to take donations then took 70,000+ donations.....you'd be here defending her?

 

[candycorn]

Trump wasn't going to be beholding to anyone, because he didn't have to take anyone's money?

Is that one more Trump lie?

He's not "beholden". He simply lied about how he would fund his campaign.

Obama did the same thing.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn, you folks really look pathetic when you start getting so petty.

I think it makes us look confused...he said he would do one thing and is doing another.

Now you're just a liar, he's always said he would accept contributions form individuals.

As of Oct 2015, my bold.

Trump has taken in 73,942 contributions, a total that surpasses several of his GOP rivals, despite the billionaire businessman’s early pledge to finance his own campaign. Financial reports filed last week also show that more than 70 percent of the $3.9 million he raised from July through September came from people giving $200 or less. That rate of small-donor contributions is second only to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s in the Democratic race.

The average Trump contribution was $50.46, his campaign said.

Trump Attracts Enthusiasm From Small Donors

Many of Trump’s small-dollar donors may in fact have been buying thousands of hats, which Trump’s campaign spent nearly $750,000 to buy along with other merchandise last quarter.​

Trump’s total raised from under-$200 donors (whose names do not need to be publicly disclosed) compared to his merchandise costs suggests a large number of his donors may actually be buying something.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/90948/how-donald-trump-capped-off-his-fundraising

Do you really think any of these donations are changing the trajectory of his campaign or he wouldn't have spent his own money if people didn't donate?

Basically you're defining why he is rich....

Do you really think that if Hillary were saying she wasn't going to take donations then took 70,000+ donations.....you'd be here defending her?

The hildabitch has much bigger problems than that, Trump wanted to self finance, people told him they wanted to donate, he relented and said he would only accept small individual contributions. If that is worse sin any candidate had, this country would be in much better shape. I'm getting too old to sweat the small stuff, you only have so much energy in life, I only fight what I consider to be important battles. But to answer your question, NO, if other candidates from either party found themselves in this same situation, I wouldn't go all third grader and petty on them.