Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[I Push Buttons]

No but it doesn't make it any less fucked how much money is involved in politics.

Even if everything was 100% transparent there would still be this much money in politics.

It costs money to run for office and even more money to actually win. Private companies own the airwaves, if you want to get your message out you need to pay. You need to pay over and over everywhere you want your message for as long as you want it there.

That is simply a fact of life. A candidate cannot campaign in such a way that they can get their message to hundreds of millions of people all across the country without mass media. And unless you are suggesting we nationalize the mass media during elections and give everyone running free air time, nothing will ever change that.

[Breccia]

“I will have in my race more than $100 million put in of my money, meaning I’m not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she’s doing,” Trump said at the second Presidential debate. “What I ask is this. I’m putting in more, by the time it’s finished, I’ll have more than $100 million invested. Pretty much self-funding. We’re raising money for the Republican Party and we’re doing tremendously on the small donations — $61 average or so.”

Well. Isn't that interesting. By which I mean, isn't that false.

Both campaigns had to release their finances for the last few weeks, including all donations. Trump, before this last batch, had given $56 million total. In the last three weeks, he gave thirty one thousand. Not million. Thousand. His refusal to fulfill his promise, or anything remotely like it, leaves his campaign with $16 million for the last couple weeks of the election season.

Let's throw in some contrast here.
A) Trump claims to be worth $10 billion in all caps. Him giving $31,000 to his campaign is proportionately like me giving a homeless guy three cents, a dick fucking move, when I promised him ten bucks.
B) Clinton gave more of her own money to her own campaign in the last report, $50,000, than Trump gave to his own.
C) And even if Trump had given the rest of his promise, $44 million, his campaign would still have less money than Clinton's, although it would be a lot closer. Clinton has $62 million as of that last report.

"I will have over $100 million in the campaign, and I'm prepared to go much more than that," he told reporters outside his hotel Wednesday. As of now, there is only proof he's given about half. This means there are three options:
A) Trump is lying about giving his own campaign money. If he's a good businessman, he at least could claim he wasn't following a bad investment. If so, that tells everyone what he thinks about his own campaign. If he's not a good businessman, his failure to donate is a lie with no redeeming qualities in any way.
B) Trump, who before the $31,000 in the last three weeks, he gave $2 million in September. It is conceivably possible that he slowed down his donations, only to have a massive burst at the end. But why the several month delay when he needed the help? And what could they do with it? Three weeks is not a lot of time to deal with that big of a sudden influx of cash. Ads take time to make, even the cheap online ones you see on FB or what not. Giving such a small amount over 7 weeks only to dump twenty times that much in 3 weeks seems really difficult to work with. Possible, but awkward for no clear benefit. His campaign barely does any polling, has few paid staffers (one-quarter of Clinton's), and have backed off of TV ads in multiple states, quite possibly due to Trump's lack of payment.
C) Or the third option is that people have been doing a lot of work for Trump on credit, and he's waiting to pay them until it's due. This seems unlikely. Trump has a long, lawsuit-filled track record of not paying people to do work for him. Anyone working in his campaign on credit has either religious-like faith or is an idiot.Trump doesn't seem to have problems paying millions to his own properties, however...

It's not an open system, so there's no 100% way to know right now which it is.

So Trump supporters, I'm going to ask you two questions. First, which do you think is more likely?
A) that Trump is asking people to do millions upon millions of dollars of work for him on credit, knowing full well that he doesn't pay people who he feels do a poor job, even if contractually obligated to, while Trump is losing?
B) that Trump is going to dump all his remaining promise into the campaign when there's very little time to allocate and use it, specifically, very little time to make and air ads, and very little time to rent and staff offices?
C) or that Trump lied to you?

The second question is, why do you support Trump, when Trump won't even support himself? Why is his campaign -- for arguably the most powerful office in the world -- worth spending other people's money, but not his own? He's running on the sole qualification of being a good businessman worth $10 billion dollars, but he's taking campaign donations and paying his own properties with it. What about this do you find endearing? What about this says he deserves your support?

Fundraising continues, but even if it didn't, Clinton has four times the money Trump does and can spend him into the ground. And Trump isn't going to get much from the RNC, is he, since Trump himself stopped fundraising for them. Since Trump is spending half their advertising budget on internet ads, Clinton can run circles around him on TV and still have enough to run her "ground game" I keep hearing about. In order to catch up with even half Clinton's cash reserves, he'll either have to make good on his promise, or expect his average $61 dollar donor and half a million of his best friends to throw back in.

It should also be noted that his wife, and none of his children, gave in September. Check for yourself. There's an Eric Trump who gave $376 but that was refunded. I tried to find the most recent report but couldn't find it.

Oh and, that line about self-funding? Even at "pretty much" lied about that too, didn't he?

EDIT: Found the FEC report. Trump's campaign has $2,086,572.41 in debt and $47,508,505.39 in "Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate" Honestly, I don't even know what that last part means. It sounds like Trump loaned his campaign $47 million. Does he expect to get it back? How? From what?

[PACOX]

Lets say Clinton is corrupt. How much corruption does it take to disqualify a candidate? Because a 3rd grader could draft a list of Trump's corruption.

If this thread doesn't reach 1000 pages before Nov 8th then Clinton wins. If it doesn't then it shows that Trump is all out of supporters, Clinton still wins.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Being a misogynist, racist, unrelatable coward doesn't make him corrupt, it makes him self centered and selfish. Clinton on the other hand? Well...

Trumps charity actually got shutdown for investigation and he might have used money from the charity to bribed a judge. He is a scumbag stop eating the turd sandwich with joy.

If any of us did half the shit these two scumbags were doing we'd be in jail. If you like Trump's plans better than Hillary's that's fine but put the turd sandwich down.

[Garnier Fructis]

If this thread doesn't reach 1000 pages before Nov 8th then Clinton wins. If it doesn't then it shows that Trump is all out of supporters, Clinton still wins.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

[kail]

Lets say Clinton is corrupt. How much corruption does it take to disqualify a candidate? Because a 3rd grader could draft a list of Trump's corruption.

If this thread doesn't reach 1000 pages before Nov 8th then Clinton wins. If it doesn't then it shows that Trump is all out of supporters, Clinton still wins.

Like it really matters at this point. We are this close to election day, Trump hasn't gained enough ground to win the race. We are at the point where the math is in Clinton's favor. People thinking Trump has a decent chance are as blind as some Sanders supporters thinking he had a chance towards the end of the primaries, and I voted for him.

A Trump supporter yelled at Cruz to "do the math", I wonder if that same guy is taking his own advise.

[Breccia]

Oh jeez. Just listen to the brave, credible journalist rise out of Bill O'Reilly as he throws Trump a softball about the election being rigged, begging him to tell his voters that, as everyone knows, there is no widespread voter fraud. Trump starts spouting nonsense and refuses to comply. O'Reilly asks Trump, to his face, for evidence.

O'Reilly is a shining example of what FOX News can become: a conservative, but honorable and respected, organization. With Ailes and hopefully Hannity gone, perhaps it will be. If so...I'll start watching.

EDIT: Also, Trump used his last ditch defense: "Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run".

Even he must know it's over if he's dusting that off again.

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly what it means. He hasn't funded his campaign at all outside of loaning his campaign the money which he can then legally use donations to repay himself.

Um...could he have donated, and also loaned? I honestly could not find his exact name and figure in the various Schedule lines. Is the $58 million total on top of, or including, $47 million in loans?

And, again, how's he going to get it back? There's not even a third of that there.

- - - Updated - - -

FOX News reports that Trump's DC hotel has already cut prices in half.

It opened Wednesday.

It also mentions that his properties in Democrat-heavy states are down 20% from last year, while visits from women are down the same percent since March.

[Wells]

Being a misogynist, racist, unrelatable coward doesn't make him corrupt, it makes him self centered and selfish. Clinton on the other hand? Well...

No, the corruption makes him corrupt.

[PACOX]

Oh jeez. Just listen to the brave, credible journalist rise out of Bill O'Reilly as he throws Trump a softball about the election being rigged, begging him to tell his voters that, as everyone knows, there is no widespread voter fraud. Trump starts spouting nonsense and refuses to comply. O'Reilly asks Trump, to his face, for evidence.

O'Reilly is a shining example of what FOX News can become: a conservative, but honorable and respected, organization. With Ailes and hopefully Hannity gone, perhaps it will be. If so...I'll start watching.

I'm waiting for Fox to dumg Megyn Kelly. They make her look left by going so far right.

[Breccia]

I'm wondering if that's why they're so low on money now, because they had to repay Trump.

First of all, thank you.

Second of all, I'm fairly sure, from what I was able to read and understand, that if they paid loans back it would have to be in there somewhere, BUT the total-to-date loans remains $47,500,000 or so. Meaning, whatever he's been paid back, that's how much is still left.

As a reminder, we already know Trump routinely loans himself money at prime plus five percent. So, not only might he pay himself back, it's possible he might even make a tidy profit.

[Breccia]

I really hope Mark Cuban's predictions are correct when he said Trump would be broke within the next seven years once he loses the election.

The Daily Beast shares your sentiments, but backs it up with specifics. Trump is having issues putting his name on properties, especially in other countries and NJ.

Maybe he didn't start this campaign to end up running Trump TV, but he's increasingly short on options.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm waiting for Fox to dumg Megyn Kelly. They make her look left by going so far right.

Then they'd have to drop this guy too.

Jeez. That's a LOT of negative Trump material on FOX in one day.

[Mormolyce]

O'Reilly is a shining example of what FOX News can become: a conservative, but honorable and respected, organization. With Ailes and hopefully Hannity gone, perhaps it will be. If so...I'll start watching.

Hahahaha!

I'm sorry to burst that bubble, but more likely FOX has long standing ties to the Republican establishment, the faction that hates Trump's guts and will likely try to wrestle the party out of his tiny hands once the election is over.

[Orlong]

You mean thats how its supposed to work in theory.

In reality you have a powerless president that just gets blocked by the opposing political party in congress.

Thats how its supposed to be. Congress isnt supposed to be a rubber stamp for the President's agenda. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass bills and laws. If something isnt so good for the country and its people that you cant get more than 50% of the members of 3 different branches to agree, then it isnt worth passing. Having a President, Senate, and House comprised of the same party is how we get bad laws/regulations

- - - Updated - - -

I wanted Bernie but that went no where because of rigged super delegates so fuck it

You can still vote for him to show your support. Just write him in. Or you could vote for me if you want to!

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of the time, yes. Especially with very polarized policies but they still get a lot done. One of the strongest powers a president holds is their power to veto, which is done pretty often.

Actually many laws have been passed throughout Obama's Term. People are acting like not a single bill has passed. It only seems that way sometimes because the media doesnt report on every bill that is voted on, they only talk about controversial or highly polarized bills

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats tend to be more educated than republicans? The source here is of course, yourself.

Our country gives out 12 free years of education.... if someone isn't utilizing it by that point, adding in 16 or 20 years isn't going to make much of a difference. Plus the concept is silly in the first place, because you can keep tacking extra years, and for example say "if we give 30 years of free education, then people will be even more smart". There has to be a level of practicality.

But anyways, let's play a game, there's a group in America. This group has the lowest IQ compared to the other groups out there. 95% of this group voted for Obama. Can you guess this group?

Not only that but Japanese kids only go for 12 years as well and are on a much higher intelligence level. Its because their parents instill in their kids the importance of learning. You dont see inner city Japanese schools with high truancy rates, kids that backtalk and curse at the teachers, fights and drugs, constant disruptions, etc... But of course Japanese kids are actually punished when they act up too. Its not an education problem in the US, its a union refusing to allow bad teachers to be fired, disinterested or bad parenting, and discipline. Japanese high school graduates are often more educated than kids getting bachelor degrees in the USproblem

[Wyrt]

Not only that but Japanese kids only go for 12 years as well and are on a much higher intelligence level. Its because their parents instill in their kids the importance of learning. You dont see inner city Japanese schools with high truancy rates, kids that backtalk and curse at the teachers, fights and drugs, constant disruptions, etc... But of course Japanese kids are actually punished when they act up too. Its not an education problem in the US, its a union refusing to allow bad teachers to be fired, disinterested or bad parenting, and discipline problem

In poorer areas parents often don't have the time to properly teach their kids. They're working 2 jobs just to provide food.

Firing teachers isn't going to solve a whole lot when good teachers won't want to teach in those areas and the schools aren't able to pay them enough to entice them to come over.

The whole situation is a pretty big clusterfuck of several different issues. Education is certainly part of it.

[Venant]

In poorer areas parents often don't have the time to properly teach their kids. They're working 2 jobs just to provide food.

Firing teachers isn't going to solve a whole lot when good teachers won't want to teach in those areas and the schools aren't able to pay them enough to entice them to come over.

The whole situation is a pretty big clusterfuck of several different issues. Education is certainly part of it.

Being a parent is a tough job, and many of these people who mass produce children have a deep aversion to jobs. Liberal propaganda has shaped the opinions of those who have never actually lived in a big city ghetto.

[Wyrt]

Being a parent is a tough job, and many of these people who mass produce children have a deep aversion to jobs. Liberal propaganda has shaped the opinions of those who have never actually lived in a big city ghetto.

Funny. I thought Republicans were all for large families with many children.

[Deleted]

Who will be the GoP candidate in 4 years?

I think Jeb Bush will actually look pretty good by then.

[Wyrt]

Who will be the GoP candidate in 4 years?

I think Jeb Bush will actually look pretty good by then.

Well, that'll depend on if the crazies that nominated Trump are still part of the Republican party next time or if they form their own 3rd party.

[Venant]

Funny. I thought Republicans were all for large families with many children.

its not so much a 'family' when there are 3 or 4 absent fathers involved

[Deleted]

Well, that'll depend on if the crazies that nominated Trump are still part of the Republican party next time or if they form their own 3rd party.

That would require too much organization I think for this group