Democrats shudder at Trump’s money machine

[BrooklynGuy]

I was absolutely shocked shocked I tell you, that I found this on Yahoo, somebody is asleep on the job over there in the Editorial Fake News Department. 

‘It’s too much’: Democrats shudder at Trump’s money machine

Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee have raised more than $300 million this year for his reelection — more than any other sitting president in history at this point in the campaign. Trump has nearly twice as much cash on hand — $158 million, between his campaign account and the RNC — as Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee had at this time in his successful re-election run. Already this year, Trump’s campaign operation has spent close to $23 million on TV and digital advertising, more than 10 times the amount that the lone major Democratic super PAC spending against him, Priorities USA, has laid out so far in its online-only spending campaign.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-money-machine-triggers-democratic-090255363.html

[Dark_Grey]

Who are Trump's primary benefactors? That will tell us a lot about what to expect during term 2. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Dark_Grey

[+Hammerclaw]

Wouldn't make any difference. People would simply promote the candidate of their choice through the private sector. 

[+OverSword]

Corporate donors mostly, no doubt.

[BrooklynGuy]

On a side note for my like minded brethren it took some persistence on my part but I was able to rid my Yahoo news feed of all the fake news posts from HuffnPuff and the alike. Between them and the Kardashians you had to scroll through 20 pages to get to an actual new article. I will say that Yahoo has a 1st rate Fantasy Sports machine and of course they are one of the few places that still allow comments on their articles which I applaud them for. Say speaking of the Kardashians I'll bet you guys a Snickers and a Mountain Dew that the minute the KUWTK goes off the air Bruce Jenner starts wearing men's pants again.    

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, BrooklynGuy said:

On a side note for my like minded brethren it took some persistence on my part but I was able to rid my Yahoo news feed of all the fake news posts from HuffnPuff and the alike. Between them and the Kardashians you had to scroll through 20 pages to get to an actual new article. I will say that Yahoo has a 1st rate Fantasy Sports machine and of course they are one of the few places that still allow comments on their articles which I applaud them for. Say speaking of the Kardashians I'll bet you guys a Snickers and a Mountain Dew that the minute the KUWTK goes off the air Bruce Jenner starts wearing men's pants again.    

Forget it. You can only grow a new pair on South Park.

[+OverSword]

Just now, BrooklynGuy said:

 I will say that Yahoo has a 1st rate Fantasy Sports machine and of course they are one of the few places that still allow comments on their articles which I applaud them for. 

The funniest part about that is it reveals that most of the people reading their tripe don't buy it.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Corporate donors mostly, no doubt.

The DNC better hope that's the case because if those donations are primarily under 100 bucks it could be a portent of doom for their chances next year.  I think the overall amounts reflect the lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates that have stepped forward so far.  Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

[Dark_Grey]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

The DNC better hope that's the case because if those donations are primarily under 100 bucks it could be a portent of doom for their chances next year.  I think the overall amounts reflect the lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates that have stepped forward so far.  Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

It was never "her time" nor will it ever be her time. She could barely fill a high school gymnasium when she ran in 2016. Men don't like her because she reminds them of a cranky mother-in-law and (sane) women don't like her because they can smell her crazy.

Maybe this is the best way to put it: the hashtag #HILLARYFORPRISON was blocked on Twitter for the past 3 years. Just recently, it has been unblocked and was retweeted countless times. What this small gesture means is that Twitter is no longer covering for the Clintons. It means the Clintons have been left to the mercy of the masses. 

[RoofGardener]

41 minutes ago, and then said:

The DNC better hope that's the case because if those donations are primarily under 100 bucks it could be a portent of doom for their chances next year.  I think the overall amounts reflect the lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates that have stepped forward so far.  Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

I'm under the impression that the bulk of donations are indeed very small... they are private individuals donating ten dollars or so. However, I can't remember where or when I heard this, and it MIGHT relate to the 2016 elections ? 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

That seems so unlikely.  Hard to believe that supporters of any of the other candidates would be happy with that or support it.  If she pulled it off though , you would be right, it would be the end of the DNC.  Even if her slogan was, "At least I am not Trump" voter turnout would likely be anemic.

But it is a great tail twister to fire up the Republican base.    Will it get them to send in more contributions in fear and panic?  Just maybe.

One wonders how long the Republicans will be able to use her as a voodoo scare doll.  I bet Republican strategists would donate blood and organs to keep her around another 20 years.  It alleviates the need to find a good candidate, just one better than Hillary.

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, and then said:

The DNC better hope that's the case because if those donations are primarily under 100 bucks it could be a portent of doom for their chances next year.  I think the overall amounts reflect the lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates that have stepped forward so far.  Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

Talk of a Brokered Convention is starting to make its rounds.  Hilary is one name but that will assure Trump's reelection.  Moochell keeps coming up.  But who else has any kind of name recognition that could beat Trump?  Or make an attempt?  Romney?  I think Cummings would have the best chance.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

One wonders how long the Republicans will be able to use her as a voodoo scare doll.

I'd say that could be ended by her being held accountable for some of the criminal acts she has gotten away with in plain sight.  She clearly violated the espionage act with multiple counts and the FBI admitted (Strozk and Page) that they did.  If she was held to account on this alone it would nullify enough of the obvious double standards we live under that she'd become a non entity.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I think Cummings would have the best chance.

When I hear people become outraged that he is being disrespected I just think back to how he behaved and I have no problem with it.  He's like the way people spoke about Scrooge.  If you want accolades after death don't be vicous.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Talk of a Brokered Convention is starting to make its rounds.  Hilary is one name but that will assure Trump's reelection.  Moochell keeps coming up.  But who else has any kind of name recognition that could beat Trump?  Or make an attempt?  Romney?  I think Cummings would have the best chance.

Kardashian.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Kardashian.

You should know by now that the Hollywood elite aren't the mainstream.  They just reinforce the native nuttiness in the DNC 

[Hankenhunter]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Add to this news the recent rumblings that the Hildebeast could be resurrected and it just makes the next year more disgusting to ponder.  I saw a recent piece by Ben Shapiro saying now is the time for HRC to jump in and steal the nomination.  If that occurs I will know without doubt that the DNC is finished as a legitimate political party.

U.M is not your personal erotica site. 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I'd say that could be ended by her being held accountable for some of the criminal acts she has gotten away with in plain sight.  She clearly violated the espionage act with multiple counts and the FBI admitted (Strozk and Page) that they did.  If she was held to account on this alone it would nullify enough of the obvious double standards we live under that she'd become a non entity.

So you say.  I am not so certain that she clearly violated anything significant enough to be charged,  It is kinda like the Republicans are now saying about Trump.  "Sure he did a couple of things that were wrong, but not enough to remove him from office.

Many on the boards say an investigation is still under way.   Maybe something will come up, maybe not.  If it doesn't pan out, I will send you my Mueller crying towel. Yet I would not be sorry to see her go.

Still, I think you will keep that voodoo doll around and rattle it every time the conservatives have a setback.   It will be the Clinton Foundation, or the Clinton Legacy, or the shadow government Hillary set up.  She will be used at bedtime to scare conservative children for a generation to come.

[Tatetopa]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Talk of a Brokered Convention is starting to make its rounds.  Hilary is one name but that will assure Trump's reelection.  Moochell keeps coming up.  But who else has any kind of name recognition that could beat Trump?  Or make an attempt?  Romney?  I think Cummings would have the best chance.

Isn't there talk of Trump resigning before too much dirt sticks to Pence  making the rounds too. People are worried that Trump will try to throw Pence under the bus.  If they both go, you know who will be next in line.

[+and-then]

12 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

So you say.  I am not so certain that she clearly violated anything significant enough to be charged, 

It's statements like this that undermine your credibility, Tat.  This woman received a subpoena for all her emails and after that she and her attorneys went through the 60K + emails and decided what they would or would not reveal.  Had any Republican in that situation done this they WOULD be facing charges for obstruction of justice and they'd deserve to do.  Look at all of the noise and righteous indignation about Trump making public statements about his displeasure at how he was being treated by the Dems.  They wanted to construe his words as obstruction.  They/you seem resistant to even acknowledge her guilt with an abundance of evidence just because the FBI declined to hold her accountable even though we now know Comey, Strzok and Page were admitting their decision to go easy on her because they assumed she would be president.  It's amazing what a crook can get away with when the authorities decide to look the other way, innit?

So, care to explain why she shouldn't have been prosecuted for obstruction when her actions were textbook examples of it?

[Farmer77]

Just now, and then said:

  Had any Republican in that situation done this they WOULD be facing charges for obstruction of justice and they'd deserve to do.

The Republican appointed IG doesnt seem to think so.

Just now, and then said:

So, care to explain why she shouldn't have been prosecuted for obstruction when her actions were textbook examples of it?

The IG just did that in his report didnt he? Or was that the IG report from 2018 that did that?

Oh here it was the 2018 one : https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-takeaways-inspector-generals-report-clinton-email-investigation

Quote

Third, the IG broadly validates the investigation’s conclusion: to decline to seek charges against Clinton or anyone else.

 

Rest assured I have no doubt that if he stays in office long enough eventually,maybe after the seventh or eighth "investigation", someone on Trumps payroll will say there is enough to charge Hillary in the whole thing though.

 

[+and-then]

15 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Isn't there talk of Trump resigning before too much dirt sticks to Pence  making the rounds too. People are worried that Trump will try to throw Pence under the bus.  If they both go, you know who will be next in line.

Yup.  The American revolution 2.0  NO WAY the scum on the Left get away with that action.  People who actually believe Trump is going to quit are obviously deaf dumb and blind to Trump's personality.  I guess they can be forgiven though.  They've spent so much time screaming about who THEY say he is that they haven't bothered to figure him out.  He's an incredibly easy individual to understand.  Ask ANY of the thousands of Americans that show up to his rallies what kind of person Trump is and they will have a more accurate view than anyone in media, even after 3 years.  They don't know who he is because they don't want to know.  So they will continue to behave foolishly and he will win again.  Even if their tantrums turn violent next year.  I'm almost willing to lay a wager that as Summer approaches we will see that kind of nonsense in some Lib cities IF the DNC knows from internal polling that they're going to lose.  All bets will be off, anything and everything to intimidate his voters.  Intimidation was the primary tool of Hitler's Brown Shirts before he rose to power.  It'd take a warehouse full of brown cloth to put one of the DNC candidates in the Oval Office because they are completely tone deaf to average Americans that work for a living.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Rest assured I have no doubt that if he stays in office long enough eventually,maybe after the seventh or eighth "investigation", someone on Trumps payroll will say there is enough to charge Hillary in the whole thing though.

Denying the validity of it in advance is a waste of your time, comrade.  It's obvious that this is the strategy that will be used.  There's already a concerted effort to smear Barr and if Durham brings indictments it will mean that he actually has evidence.  It's amazing what you can accomplish with real proof versus innuendo.  The Left should try it.

[Farmer77]

31 minutes ago, and then said:

There's already a concerted effort to smear Barr

Yeah he started that himself with his Mueller report propaganda. The DOJ is obviously compromised.

31 minutes ago, and then said:

It's amazing what you can accomplish with real proof versus innuendo.  The Left should try it.

You mean like the texts showing Trump wouldnt meet with Zelinsky unless he publicly announced an investigation into the dems and biden? 

The fact that you choose to ignore facts, while annoying, is a you problem. Please however stop trying to convince the other 70% of the nation that you guys care about facts, at all, its kinda insulting to the rest of us.

I cant tell anymore which of you guys truly believe the propaganda youre spreading and which of you know theyre lying just to beat the other side but once upon a time you talked as if you cared about the constitution and historical America. If that still holds true I would implore you to examine the evidences. The road you guys are on is a terribly dangerous one for our nation. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Farmer77

[ian hacktorp]

^^Lol...Dems and the rest of the Left are now in full agreement:

Edited October 22, 2019 by hacktorp