Accusations of fraud as Trump’s Campaign Bilked His Fans Out of Millions

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This is pretty damned funny.

In all honesty, anyone donating to a candidate sorta deserves to be taken for a ride.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: RazorV66

I don’t count someone sucking their way to the top

Oh so because she's a woman the only way she got to where she is is because she sucked her way?

A little sexist eh?

So you know next to nothing about the women you want as you're president.

Pre kamala being VP you could find the stories anywhere online.. even willy brown admitted to it.

But yes he's very sexist in pointing out that she used her snatch more than anything else in politics.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: RazorV66

I don’t count someone sucking their way to the top

Oh so because she's a woman the only way she got to where she is is because she sucked her way?

A little sexist eh?

No. verifiable by her former people she slept with to get in power.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Do you think Trump's fans/donors are going to care about an extra $100 donation in the fine print? I'd bet they'd be fine giving much more.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I guess it's the debate on responsibility.

This is what I got from the manner in which you couched the news of this con, that this type of scam is going on all around us. It's not just in political circles but everywhere.

As for the context of this example of scamming,this one in relation to the Trump organization, a tender nerve seems to have been plucked as evidenced by the immediate throwback tossed into the entire discussion of the events.
I am leery of adages but Lincoln's famous ''you can fool some of the people some of the time'' which I believe he used as a statement on the general intelligence of the American people seems to have morphed into the general number one rule and guideline of American business and political campaigning. Back in the Reagan years I came to understand that that adage has synthesized into a simple ''you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.

To the use of Trumpian reference on this theme, I think what better example could there be, this site being as pro Trump as it is. It's a simple thing to point out to folks here how those adages are being used by those who they consider their enemies yet, as you say'' a difficult thing to do when focused on the side of the battle ground they themselves have demarcated .

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Not fraud, sorry. 100% legal, in fact many fund raisers do the same. Its up to each one of us to read what we're signing, or reading before we agree. Ignorance is not an excuse and definitely something you can't blame someone else for.

I feel this is just your brash hatred towards someone making you knee jerk poorly executed threads in order to smear.

a reply to: yuppa

No. verifiable by her former people she slept with to get in power.

You use the word ''people'' here. People? I will name one possibility. Willy Brown. Yes he was a powerful politician and she a nice looking young woman. And yes, they dated for a bit of time, less than a year as I have been able to understand. And yes,it is easy to assume that there was some ''sleeping'' going on between them. And yes, he did appoint her to two very small state committees of little importance during that period.

But ''people''? Can you point us towards any other person you think she might have slept with to help her promote her political ambitions? Can you name one?

At least the donations are traceable

Flashback

'Untraceable': Half of 2019 Donations to Dem Fundraising Platform Reportedly Came from 'Unemployed' Donors

“ActBlue’s insistence on refusing to allow banks to verify their donations is an invitation to foreign programmers or others to send money through them using fake American names, and we encourage them to start letting banks verify the identity of donors to stop the potential for millions of dollars to influence our election,” Pudner said.

He said ActBlue needs to clean up its act.

“[T]his untraceable system allows someone with a gift card to make donations in anyone’s name, even if that person never actually made that donation, or even if that person doesn’t exist at all,” Pudner said.

“With half of ActBlue donors indicating they do not have an employer, we recommend they start letting their payment processors verify donations to stop any foreign or other illicit donations by simply listing themselves as an unemployed American.”

a reply to: Aegeus

Not fraud, sorry. 100% legal, in fact many fund raisers do the same. Its up to each one of us to read what we're signing, or reading before we agree. Ignorance is not an excuse and definitely something you can't blame someone else for.

Absolutely true. It is legal and many fund raisers and businesses use this tactic to get more cash from people who ''trust'' them. Getting peoples ''trust'' and then using that trust getting them to not be as astute as they otherwise might be.

It was my impression though that Trump was supposed to be a guy his people could trust to do things like drain the swamp, getting rid of the liars and cheats and those who take our money under false pretenses. I guess I was wrong on that assumption. That that kind of behavior is all right by them.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh yay, you’re back! Weird- your thread is about Trump. Still obsessed, I see. He’s not only living rent free in your mind body soul, but he’s getting free utilities, cable, internet, and trash pick-up.

And I suppose Billary and Obama live rent-free in a mansion in Donnie's mind, then?

That's the problem with repeating some really dumb cliche.

LOL

Getting back to the topic of the OP, I think it speaks to the ethical level of the Trump campaign. Probably had nothing to do with Trump himself, but it clearly is a little dubious due to the partially obfuscated nature of the pre-checked checkbox options.

It is clearly obvious that such should have been optional choices and not pre-checked.

I find it funny that you start your post off with Clinton and Obama living rent-free in somebody's head...

Except nobody has actually talked about them in forever but you think it is a dumb cliche.

And THEN going right into Trump in the next paragraph.

You know...

The guy living rent-free in your head.

I was responding sarcastically to a previous poster. Nobody is actually living in somebody else's head. It is an irrational things to say, which was my point.

However, what has your post to do with the OP topic at all?

It's a little unfair that they remove my response, and the original post to which I was responding, as being off-topic, without removing yours, which was off-topic in a similar vein.

The issue of the topic thread, as I see it, is that someone who administered the website used by the Trump 2020 campaign to get donations, set some checkboxes to make periodic donations and set them checked by default, and the question raised was if this was an attempt at getting extra contributions by deceptive practices. Let's stick to that.

He's been a con man his whole life, it never ends . a reply to: Southern Guardian

If Hillary had done this you'd all be hitting the roof.

Also the "living rent free in your head lmao" is so incredibly teenage-girl a response it's unreal. Discussing relevant, current news is what this thread is about. The "living rent free" thing is just a weird, bizarre comment that makes no sense.

Anyway, continue defending the con artist as usual. Anyone half decent would agree it's shady to make this an opt-out rather than an opt-in.

originally posted by: NightVision
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Do you think Trump's fans/donors are going to care about an extra $100 donation in the fine print? I'd bet they'd be fine giving much more.

A lot of them have very little money and genuinely think they're helping him.

I'm as anti trump as you can be, but the whole "stupid-tax" line is disgusting. I don't care how you vote - nobody should be scammed out of their money.

It's not Trump's fault people can't read fine print...

originally posted by: Kromlech
It's not Trump's fault people can't read fine print...

Honestly how can so many of you be defending this? It's so obviously designed to slip under the radar and there is NO reason to make it opt out rather than opt in.

The whole "L2read lmao" argument is just enabling and justifying dodgy marketing practises.

The fact is a lot of people do miss the small print, or perhaps may be elderly and less able to read it, or they just didn't notice. And you people think that on that basis, they should suffer and it's their own fault? These are your own party!

Honestly you people are so lacking in empathy and decency sometimes.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Caveat emptor. Its a founding principle if this country. Empathy, however, was not. 1776 was not a nerf event.

originally posted by: fencesitter85


Anyway, continue defending the con artist as usual. Anyone half decent would agree it's shady to make this an opt-out rather than an opt-in.

Of course its slimey. Anyone under an illusion that DJT is a good man obviously has not paid attention.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

This is like saying CLinton only got one BJ from an intern so there is nothing wrong with it.

a reply to: matafuchs
In your mind, it may be the same kind of thing but even a cursory examination of the two proves them not alike at all.
Clinton was the man who benefited from his liaison with Lewinsky, not her. She later came forward with her claims. Those claim mirrored numerous other claims from numerous other women.

But with Harris, there are no other claims of benefit to her from her personal relationships with older powerful men. None that I have found nor any that others have managed to bring to my attention other than ''wink wink, nudge nudge'' whisperings. Both her and Brown have acknowledged their period of dating, many of which were at public events and not hidden as were Clintons.

If you want to think that Clinton getting any number of women to ''service'' him because of his power or fame was OK, then that is your prerogative. Myself, I found it disgusting and still do. However what might or might not have gone on between the two consenting adults, Brown and Harris was and remains their own business.

Smearing her for her political stances is one thing but making up the notion that she slept her way to the top with no proof or even accusation is quite another.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I understand your point. However.

A POTUS slept with an intern. If you think at the time she did not think it would help her you are deluded in your thinking. She saw a powerful man and used the opportunity. I think it was wrong for him to take advantage but she knew what she was doing.

A VPOTUS slept with a married man and knew it would help her. It did. She was appointed to boards and he opened doors for her.

So to be very honest Harris and Monica were doing the exact same thing but one benefited more than the other.

I could really care less who Harris banged to get an appointment She also made sure to threaten him after words.

[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/]Link[/ur l]

Although Brown supported Harris in her successful 2003 run for San Francisco district attorney, she tried to distance herself from him in that race, telling SF Weekly that Brown – whose career was dogged by corruption allegations – was an "albatross hanging around my neck."

"His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing," she told SF Weekly, vowing, "If there is corruption, it will be prosecuted."
"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.," Brown wrote. "That’s politics for ya."

Harris used what she could. I am more concerned with her lies and laughing...to me she is 'Black HRC'..connected, uncaring and only wants power.