Is this embezzling?
He reached supervillain status back when he said he could shoot someone and not pay a political price...or maybe it was when he railed against the "Central Park Five"...or maybe when he hired his Pro-Russian campaign manager... It's really hard to tell when, but he's already there.So at worst he gets a shitload of money.
At best he becomes President of the United States.
Trump is smart as fuck tbh.
Drastically raising the rent on your ratty campaign offices, paid by your Presidential campaign fund, in a building you own, is like supervillain levels of treachery holy shit.
Jesus Christ that's horrifying. This guy has always been as shallow as a drop of water.
Jesus Christ that's horrifying. This guy has always been as shallow as a drop of water.
That pic is of his campaign HQ? What a dump!
Yeah, like it's fascinating how huge the double standards is in regards to coverage of this stuff. Like, with the Clinton Foundation, there's some e-mails that indicate the POSSIBILITY that some shady stuff went down. No evidence that any quid pro quo ever actually happened, just that people talked, but whether or not anything actually happened... no evidence.
But meanwhile, we have concrete evidence of Trump pulling some shady stuff here and... well, no one cares. They maybe cover it for a second or two on CNN and whatever, and then spend like 10 minutes talking about the Clinton Foundation again. One's hypothetical, and the other's concrete... and the one we apparently need to spend time talking about is the hypothetical one? And that's without even touching the Trump Organization and what the implications for that would be if Trump actually were elected President, which is like never talked about ever, but the implications of the Clinton Foundation? All over the place!
And to be clear, it's absolutely fair to have concerns about the Clinton Foundation. I absolutely don't blame people for having questions about it (especially since the media often makes the issue as confusing as possible as to what we actually have evidence for what occurred and what didn't, and what the Clinton Foundation even actually is). That's fair! That's definitely a discussion that people can have, and are having. But if we're going to do that, it has to go both ways, and stuff like this should be talked about as well. But the media just doesn't care and keeps giving Trump a free pass on stuff like this for some reason, while spending hours talking about the Clinton foundation and her e-mails. The double-standards that have surrounded Clinton for her entire political career are equal parts fascinating, baffling, and frustrating.
It's perfectly legal. Slimy as fuck and straight out of the Gingrich playbook, but legal.
How the fuck is this legal? Someone explain this to me.
Says who?
Most people. All people?
HOW DOES SHIT LIKE THAT NOT IMMEDIATELY SINK HIM? HOW??? WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING??
That pic is of his campaign HQ? What a dump!
dude is scamming the hell out of republicans
[boots];214682391 said:Move over Dennis Miller.
[boots];214682781 said:Basically became a nobody after SNL (unless you count Bordello of Blood)
Who did this poor bastard piss off to be sent to demolition zone. Those wires are a safety concern for sure.
Michael Cohen must be fuming right now because what he said in reply to a question asked when he went on CNN a few days ago is literally becoming a meme now.
Anyway is what trump doing here legal. He's been doing stuff like this for months now even though some of the things he done in terms of campaign spending have been worse than this.
Oddly enough, I don't feel sorry for them. They effed up a lot of people, so turn around is fair play.I feel sorry for the Republican voters. Imagine donating to a bragging billionaire in the first place and the said billionaire actually misusing the funds. It is kinda sad. He's gonna lose badly too and inflict heavy damage on the GOP.
I feel sorry for the Republican voters. Imagine donating to a bragging billionaire in the first place and the said billionaire actually misusing the funds. It is kinda sad. He's gonna lose badly too and inflict heavy damage on the GOP.
I notice the article omitted how much space he's renting, the cost per square foot, etc. It did mention that the Clinton campaign is actually spending more, but it doesn't give context. Is he overcharging himself, or is he paying essentially market rate?
I was all set to be outraged at this until I read that last line about Clinton's rent too. Trump is still paying less than her.
So, "Trump gives himself less of a discount" might be a more accurate and less inflammatory headline. But we would actually need more data to say for sure.
Well that's not entirely accurate. Clinton isn't renting properties that she owns for the purposes of the campaign so she is beholden to the rent charged by the property owners. Trump could be renting "at cost" but instead is charging "for profit" rates. This also ties into the fact that the majority of spending by Trump is for Trump or Trump family member businesses.
The biggest problem with all of this is the fact it is legal according to election laws etc. Laws need to be written to outlaw the usage of ones own property etc. unless an independent group is tasked with determining fair value compensation etc.
The Basement of Trump Tower is not worth 170 grand a month. Shit it wasn't worth 30 grand a month.
Well that's not entirely accurate. Clinton isn't renting properties that she owns for the purposes of the campaign so she is beholden to the rent charged by the property owners. Trump could be renting "at cost" but instead is charging "for profit" rates. This also ties into the fact that the majority of spending by Trump is for Trump or Trump family member businesses.
I was all set to be outraged at this until I read that last line about Clinton's rent too. Trump is still paying less than her.
So, "Trump gives himself less of a discount" might be a more accurate and less inflammatory headline. But we would actually need more data to say for sure.
If I'm reading correcntly Clinton is renting far more space. So the price would at least make sense. But that is not really the point of the article.I was all set to be outraged at this until I read that last line about Clinton's rent too. Trump is still paying less than her.
So, "Trump gives himself less of a discount" might be a more accurate and less inflammatory headline. But we would actually need more data to say for sure.
If I'm reading correcntly Clinton is renting far more space. So the price would at least make sense. But that is not really the point of the article.
The point is the rent was raised almost 400% for no discernible valid reason.
I was all set to be outraged at this until I read that last line about Clinton's rent too. Trump is still paying less than her.