gut;1819780 wrote:He's given at least 6X that personally to his campaign.....if the goal was to enrich his family, it would have been cheaper just to give them the money and not run for office.

He's using campaign contributions to pay himself and his kids a salary....that's illegal

Hey Quaker....

Since you hate early voting...you're really going to hate this:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN12T0J6?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

jedbartlet02;1819782 wrote:He's using campaign contributions to pay himself and his kids a salary....that's illegal

Dude it isn't. It is the best racket going. That is why Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Trump (before he actually won lol) would get in. They write a bullshit book and promote it and themselves all around the country. They keep the committee open for years. Their contributions are shifted back and forth from being marked as loans - forgiven and unforgiven and they can pay themselves back long after the campaign has ended. That's not even including selling the email lists, etc. to other scam PACs, etc.

jedbartlet02;1819822 wrote:Hey Quaker....

Since you hate early voting...you're really going to hate this:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN12T0J6?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

You realize you're the liberal version of Quaker, right?

bases_loaded;1819345 wrote:Trolls gonna troll. That is all. Both are shit candidates, but I could care less about being wrong in my choice. I would rather pick the loser than help to allow the most corrupt person to ever hold public office be awarded the top seat in government.

For the record FDR, JFK and LBJ were all democrats who were more corrupt than HRC IMHO.

Automatik;1819408 wrote:They're the same to me...garbage.


Bipartisan system....garbage.

Really I think this is how most people feel. Seems most Americans really dislike politics and the parties generally.

BoatShoes;1819830 wrote:For the record FDR, JFK and LBJ were all democrats who were more corrupt than HRC IMHO.

Not an unreasonable point.

That said, people also forget that LBJ was probably 2X worse of a human being than Trump on his most egregious day.

jedbartlet02;1819782 wrote:He's using campaign contributions to pay himself and his kids a salary....that's illegal

You are allowed to pay people on your campaign a salary - the key players are not volunteers.

And your point is ridiculous. Like I said, if his goal was to get contributions to funnel to his kids, then he'd just have given the money out of his pocket to his kids rather than the campaign.
Trump is not going to get $50M+ back or whatever it is he put into the campaign, book deals or otherwise. Campaigns may indeed be a shady source of income for most politicians (though generally legal)....but no one is taking anywhere near $50M out of their campaign. That's why the Clintons got paid millions for speeches rather than just funneling campaign donations to their pockets.

I have no idea why he bothers to pay his kids a salary - LOL maybe they wouldn't work on his campaign without being paid.

BoatShoes;1819827 wrote:Dude it isn't. It is the best racket going. That is why Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Trump (before he actually won lol) would get in. They write a bullshit book and promote it and themselves all around the country. They keep the committee open for years. Their contributions are shifted back and forth from being marked as loans - forgiven and unforgiven and they can pay themselves back long after the campaign has ended. That's not even including selling the email lists, etc. to other scam PACs, etc.

This is astonishingly accurate of Newt's 2012 bid for the GOP ticket. He didn't give a SHIT about running for President. He saw the largesse of GOP voters willing to donate as a great way to fund his own politics-related business ventures.

superman;1819829 wrote:You realize you're the liberal version of Quaker, right?

Nah, that's isadore.

BoatShoes;1819830 wrote:For the record FDR, JFK and LBJ were all democrats who were more corrupt than HRC IMHO.

I'm certainly not trying to play the "Who's more corrupt?" game, but the fact that we're making the comparisons doesn't speak well to the level at which we should see her.

gut;1819888 wrote:Trump is not going to get $50M+ back or whatever it is he put into the campaign, book deals or otherwise. Campaigns may indeed be a shady source of income for most politicians (though generally legal)....but no one is taking anywhere near $50M out of their campaign.

This actually isn't altogether true. Sure, a book deal alone won't recoup $50 million. However, selling the data acquired through donor drives alone can make a good portion of it back, if not the entire thing.

O-Trap;1820024 wrote:This actually isn't altogether true. Sure, a book deal alone won't recoup $50 million. However, selling the data acquired through donor drives alone can make a good portion of it back, if not the entire thing.

That smells to me. There are many donor lists....enough that Trump's isn't selling for hundreds of thousands, and even then it would have to basically sell to everyone running in all 50 states to make his money back.

Remember that your average state Rep/Senator is spending only a few million on their campaign. They aren't spendiing hundreds of thousands for donor lists. $50k, maybe.

gut;1820037 wrote:That smells to me. There are many donor lists....enough that Trump's isn't selling for hundreds of thousands, and even then it would have to basically sell to everyone running in all 50 states to make his money back.

Remember that your average state Rep/Senator is spending only a few million on their campaign. They aren't spendiing hundreds of thousands for donor lists. $50k, maybe.

It's not a dissimilar model to Publisher's Clearinghouse, though obviously on a much smaller scale (though with possibly less in overhead). People wonder how they give away so much money. They do so by selling data.

You can sell a donor list more than once, and the age of the donor is a VERY relevant metric when pricing such a marketing lead. Given that a presidential candidate can be reaching out to cold, but targeted, marketing lists in all 50 states and the territories, particularly during an election season, you can generate a LOT of revenue from then turning around and selling that data, complete with the demographic information that comes with it.

You get guys who lose in the primaries and have successfully raised about half what Trump put into his presidential campaign. What do you suppose happened with that data three, six, nine, or twelve months later? Remarketing, and then selling the data.

I'm not saying just ANYONE could make back $50MM on several ventures, and I'm not saying he necessarily will, but I'd be willing to wager Trump could do so, being the candidate who won the bid for the GOP. It's not impossible.

O-Trap;1820039 wrote: You get guys who lose in the primaries and have successfully raised about half what Trump put into his presidential campaign. What do you suppose happened with that data three, six, nine, or twelve months later? Remarketing, and then selling the data.

That's exactly my point - supply and demand. There are MANY, MANY donor lists available not just from poilticians but from charities and other places. Trump is not sitting on millions of dollars worth of data.

QuakerOats;1819127 wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/26/michael_moore_trump_victory_would_be_the_biggest_fk_you_recorded_in_human_history.html


pretty powerful

Saw a similar article about this just a little while ago. If by some Brexit type of miracle Trump should win, I hope it knocks all of DC on it's collective ass. I hope both parties crash and burn and I hope special interest gets spanked out of town. Fuck DC, anyway.
That would be my best hope, which won't happen of course lol. But it would really be nice if both parties got cleansed by fire. Maybe something better would rise up from the ashes.

gut;1820200 wrote:That's exactly my point - supply and demand. There are MANY, MANY donor lists available not just from poilticians but from charities and other places. Trump is not sitting on millions of dollars worth of data.

Being the actual candidate, though, allows not only for some additional branding (not only his celebrity status, but he's the ticket name of a major party now), but his data will be fresher than any of the others geared toward fundraising for anything close to "Conservative" organizations.

My point is that not all the supply is equal, and he's the only person on his tier. Clinton is in the same boat. No other candidates have data that is not only fresher, but likely in larger quantities.

gosh a ruddies, finally some real voter fraud.
A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.
Terri Lynn Rote, a 55-year-old Des Moines resident, was booked Thursday on a first-degree charge of election misconduct, according to Polk County Jail records. The charge is considered a Class D felony under Iowa state law.
Rote was released Friday after posting $5,000 bond. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Nov. 7.
The Des Moines Register reported that Rote is a registered Republican who cast two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records.
Rote hadn’t planned on voting twice but said it was “a spur-of-the-moment thing” when she walked by the satellite voting location, she told The Washington Post in a phone interview Saturday.
“I don’t know what came over me,” Rote said.
She added she has been a supporter of Donald Trump since early in his campaign, after Republican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the primary race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.6087df5ce095


from one of the Donald's more attractive supporters.

O-Trap;1820228 wrote:Being the actual candidate, though, allows not only for some additional branding (not only his celebrity status, but he's the ticket name of a major party now), but his data will be fresher than any of the others geared toward fundraising for anything close to "Conservative" organizations.

My point is that not all the supply is equal, and he's the only person on his tier. Clinton is in the same boat. No other candidates have data that is not only fresher, but likely in larger quantities.

His 'brand" on the data is absolutely worthless. It's list of names, not a golf course. And there are hundreds of local, state and federal reps with similar lists, and probably deeper "locally" than his list.

Both the RNC and DNC have substantial, and largely similar, lists. What is valuable - what Obama had but Trump is unlikely to - is links of that data to significant other information pulled from a variety of sources. As we know, Trump did not make such investments in his data and ground game.

And you've seen lists of major contributors to campaigns, correct? That info is already out there. Contact information is not hard to find in most cases, and in most cases there are existing records because it's not the first time these people have made campaign and charitable contributions.

Trump's list is probably worth $10M, total, after being sold numerous times - he's got about 3X the number of names as Ben Carson, which is estimated to be worth about $4M over 3 years. He's not getting anywhere near the $50M+ back that he allegedly put into his campaign.

Romney is making an estimated $1.4M a year off his list. Scott Walker charges $10k to send one email to his list of 700,000 names. Trump's list is simply not worth tens of millions - it's hardly a commodity, but it's not truly rare or unique either.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-emails-comey-poll-politico-morning-consult-230519

It appears that the Comey announcement isn't going to move the polls much

IMO...people had already made up their minds about this and it's not going to influence many people

Actually did the early voting yesterday. Surprised how many people at 4pm on a sunday were voting. Ladies said nearly 1700 so far in our small, lil county have come in to vote

Thirty-nine percent of voters said the additional review of emails in the Clinton case had no bearing on their vote in November, while 33 percent it made them much less likely to vote for Clinton

Yeah that 33% is nothing.

jedbartlet02;1820493 wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-emails-comey-poll-politico-morning-consult-230519

It appears that the Comey announcement isn't going to move the polls much

IMO...people had already made up their minds about this and it's not going to influence many people

Dream on. Most rational and honest people will never vote for a criminal currently under federal investigation.

Between this and Obamacare rate hike........Clinton is toast. History will write these as the October surprises.

Spock;1820507 wrote:Between this and Obamacare rate hike........Clinton is toast. History will write these as the October surprises.

The estimate is 22 million votes had been cast before this news came out.

It's not going to make a difference. It'll be President Clinton in a week.

sleeper;1820515 wrote:The estimate is 22 million votes had been cast before this news came out.

It's not going to make a difference. It'll be President Clinton in a week.

Yeah, the only question is if Obama is going to have to pardon her when he leaves office.

I agree it probably happened to late. Clinton being corrupt and allegedly criminal isn't news and people have already decided if that's better or worse than a President Trump. She's President in a week. But that doesn't mean it's going away. Impeachment is a real possibility for President HRC.

rocketalum;1820522 wrote: Impeachment is a real possibility for President HRC.

Doubtful. Barring a "Nixon moment", Repubs will never have anywhere near 2/3 vote in the Senate to do that. Hillary is too good at covering her tracks, and been perfecting her craft for 30+ years.