421
Trump demands 5% cut from GOP candidates who use his 'name, image and likeness' in ads
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
421 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19093 readers
4518 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because:
And Hillary's agreement was 50%, but in reality it was hardly anything making it down ballot. There was even more shady shit going on where they changed to not splitting the money till very very late in the election, at which point the DNC said there wasn't any left to give.
Like I said, the only way we'll know what happens this time, is if someone with access to the DNCs books admits it later. After that happened following Hillary's loss, it's very likey a prerequisite for those positions involves not snitching on the last group.
But between those ~~two~~~ three articles I linked, it covers most of what was going on.
Surely it would be easier to read the articles than me trying to explain it?
You'd get the full picture (that we knew at the time it was written) instead of me trying to summarize.
Yes, I understand the gist of the victory fund thing.
My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing? Even if we posit without evidence that Biden is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing with it that Hillary did.
...
Because trump is just demanding a cut.
Biden's 2020 campaign are the ones that structured it so billionaires can give 625k, which is much larger than the normal 2.5k you can give to a candidate.
PACs get around it by not being allowed to "coordinate" with the campaign legally.
This allows the DNC to essentially be a PAC, except they can legally coordinate with Biden's campaign...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donors-can-now-give-620600-to-biden-and-dnc-expanding-democratic-big-money-fundraising/2020/05/16/d2bf51cc-978a-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html
It's all there in one of the links you haven't read.
trump is doing a small time grift, Biden significantly expanded how much the wealthy can influence an election far and above citizens united. Which you just said was a problem...
So I don't understand how you don't see how what Biden is doing is worse.
If the problem is me explaining it, please read those articles and see if that helps. I'm not sure how else to put it that's simpler, and don't see the point of me going as in depth as those articles you won't read.
I understand perfectly well, you don't need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don't understand.
Trump is siphoning money that he didn't raise away from downballot candidates
Biden is raising money, then you're saying that he's probably not giving enough of it to downballot candidates (while admitting you have no idea whether that's actually happening; you're just assuming it because of what Hillary did)
Right? Do I have that summary correct?
If your main concern is that you're upset that all this stuff is legal in America, I fully agree. I think directing anger at the system that made it legal and try to make it illegal again sounds like a great idea. Since it's legal though, it seems weird to say that it's a huge problem that the better candidate in this election is doing it (to try to raise money and win the election).
I don't even understand how Biden's name came into this and why you're trying so hard to link this particular type of legalized corruption with his name, specifically under an unrelated story about Trump inventing a whole new type of kneecapping-downballot-candidates to do.
(I mean, I have a theory for why you're so eager to bring Biden's name into it and bring up shady things Hillary Clinton did 8 years ago; I'm just pointing out that it's an odd thing to be so eager to bring into discussion about this story.)
You literally said:
So I took that as meaning I needed to repeat what I already explained because you didn't understand...
You keep asking me things that are explained in the articles you're not reading.
If the problem is me, take me out of the equation and just read the articles man.
That comic is actually a really good illustration of how to use propagandistic framing (take a sensible thing and put it in the mouth of a character who's dislikeable) -- in this case, making it seem like "Sounds like you're talking bollocks about something I care about, can you justify what you said?" is a rude thing to ask.
(Edit: He edited the comment maybe? This is the comic which was part of the comment before he edited it)