This bothers me more than it should... (Page 4/5)
olejoedad SEP 24, 01:52 PM
May have
Potentially
If

Weasel words

williegoat SEP 24, 02:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

May have
Potentially
If

Weasel words


Mindless copy&paste of leftist talking points from one of rayb's pirate forums.

Just like Biden reads stage directions out loud, rayb copies "Tweetable quote:"

Rayb and Biden have a lot in common.

Rayb, we know what you are doing. Most of us have been around the block enough times that we don't need a map*

* that's GPS, for all you youngsters
Doug85GT SEP 24, 03:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


therump mixed it up from the beginning

first he claim to only self fund no begging


New information reveals that President Trump may have illegally financed his 2016 campaign with a secret loan that potentially exceeded legal limits. Voters in 2016 had a right to know where Trump was getting the money for his campaign.

Tweetable quote: If Trump secretly financed his 2016 campaign using an undisclosed bank loan backed by a billionaire developer, then voters have been illegally deprived of important information about the true sources of Trump's financial support.

As laid out in the latest report in The New York Times series examining Trump's tax returns, in September 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, Trump quietly took out a multi-million dollar loan in the name of an LLC that he jointly owns with billionaire developer Phil Ruffin, with Trump Tower Las Vegas as collateral.

Tax records show that the LLC paid Trump over $21 million in 2016 and claimed a tax deduction on the payments. Six weeks after obtaining the loan, Trump gave $10 million to his campaign. Federal law requires that candidates disclose bank loans used in connection with their campaign.

Additionally, if the LLC took a tax deduction for the payments to Trump, it would mean that Trump secretly relied on taxpayers to help subsidize his 2016 campaign.




Big problem there. Money is fungible. For example, Planned Parenthood receives tax payer money. There is a restriction on using such funds to pay for abortions. So long as Planned Parenthood can show that it has enough funds from other sources to cover its abortion business, it can claim that no tax payer money went to fund abortions.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
NewDustin SEP 24, 09:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


I think this needs to be clarified... when you support a political campaign financially, you are bound by legal and campaign finance laws. When YOU as the politician directly self-fund your campaign by money you make, it's not regulated. Meaning that... these funds can go to filling up the gas in the jet that takes him everywhere, to fighting the legal battles that he's dealing with right now because he's running. Neither of these things are considered "funding a campaign," but they are.



I think this needs to be clarified...Trump financed his campaign via loans that were/are being paid back to him with profit-generating interest. He is not "funding" his campaign, he is "financing" it; there is a distinct difference (i.e. whether you make money on the endeavor or not). He has, in fact, inflated his own personal wealth considerably via "paying for" his own campaigns.
olejoedad SEP 25, 08:27 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:


I think this needs to be clarified...Trump financed his campaign via loans that were/are being paid back to him with profit-generating interest. He is not "funding" his campaign, he is "financing" it; there is a distinct difference (i.e. whether you make money on the endeavor or not). He has, in fact, inflated his own personal wealth considerably via "paying for" his own campaigns.



Yup, with that kind of smarts, just imagine how quickly he will bring wealth and prosperity back to our nation and start paying down the national debt that the Democrats have created.
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 25, 09:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

I think this needs to be clarified...Trump financed his campaign via loans that were/are being paid back to him with profit-generating interest. He is not "funding" his campaign, he is "financing" it; there is a distinct difference (i.e. whether you make money on the endeavor or not). He has, in fact, inflated his own personal wealth considerably via "paying for" his own campaigns.




I think you're greatly misrepresenting this here... his "personal wealth" is quite a bit less today than it was in 2016 just before he ran. He's lost a lot of money.

Donald Trump is a lot less rich today than when he was elected president
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09...mp-wealth/index.html


Random point, it's so classless when people use the term "rich" to describe wealth. It tells me all I need to know about what kind of household they were raised in. Rich is used to describe the contrast of color, or how much sugar and cocoa is in chocolate, or something like that. Not the numerical value of your savings.
cliffw SEP 25, 10:22 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:
how is that NOT a personal attack

and a typical RWNJ post here



ray ray, are you asking me if I committed a personal attack, while committing a personal attack on me ?
cliffw SEP 25, 12:59 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
I think this needs to be clarified...Trump financed his campaign via loans that were/are being paid back to him with profit-generating interest. He is not "funding" his campaign, he is "financing" it; there is a distinct difference (i.e. whether you make money on the endeavor or not). He has, in fact, inflated his own personal wealth considerably via "paying for" his own campaigns.



Are we seeking clarification ?

Trump would not be able to personally fund his campaign without financing it.
Patrick SEP 25, 04:44 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Perhaps you should look up the definitions for "substantiate" and "substantial".



Bring it up with Todd. I was simply copying the use of his term.


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work] Here:

This is what happens when you have nothing of substantiative value to add to the conversation...



-------------------------------------------


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

What you said was an azzhole opinion.



It could be said that your opinion of my opinion is an "azzhole" opinion.


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Why are you even here ?



Slumming, maybe?

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-26-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] SEP 25, 06:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Bring it up with Todd. I was simply copying the use of his term.





I'm not following the rest of the thread, but substantiative means "serving to support or corroborate" (in a discussion)... which was my intended use.