ADVERTISEMENT

Partisan impeachment continues to backfire; Trump raises record $46M in donations

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
105,726
120,206
113
First the polls in every swing state turned against the Democrat led, partisan impeachment debacle.

Now the Trump campaign just raised a record $46M in Q4 due largely to the overwhelming backlash against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff's shameless actions.

Keep it going loonie lefties, this impeachment thing is really going well!
 
i thought i heard hes raised more money than all the dems combined at this point. impeachment strategy is really starting to look bad.
 
All these poor people in fly-over areas giving away money they don't have. SAD!!!

Do I really need to add an asterisk?
 
First the polls in every swing state turned against the Democrat led, partisan impeachment debacle.

Now the Trump campaign just raised a record $46M in Q4 due largely to the overwhelming backlash against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff's shameless actions.

Keep it going loonie lefties, this impeachment thing is really going well!
That seems pretty bad since he has all Republican donations going to him. Dems raised well over 100M
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
i thought i heard hes raised more money than all the dems combined at this point. impeachment strategy is really starting to look bad.

Literally nothing you post is correct.

You people really live in an alternate reality from the rest of us.
 
That seems pretty bad since he has all Republican donations going to him. Dems raised well over 100M

lol no. They’re all fighting each other in a primary, he’s not even campaigning against anyone yet and still raising huge money. Spin attempt failed.

The Trump campaign has a record level of cash on hand going into 2020 mostly thanks to the asshat Democrats and their impeachment debacle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...ise-154-million-in-fourth-quarter-of-2019?amp
 
lol no. They’re all fighting each other in a primary, he’s not even campaigning against anyone yet and still raising huge money. Spin attempt failed.

The Trump campaign has a record level of cash on hand going into 2020 mostly thanks to the asshat Democrats and their impeachment debacle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476658-trump-campaign-rnc-raise-154-million-in-fourth-quarter-of-2019?amp
Just seems like raising 100M is more than raising 45M
 
Bernie Sanders raised 35 million by himself and he's polling at like 18% in the primary. I just don't think 45 million in 2020 is even close to good when you are the leader of a consolidated ticket. Sure it's probably higher than Obama's numbers from 2012 but that's the last legit comparison and it's from 8 years ago. This actually seems bad for Trump and I'm not surprised given the polling support for his removal from office.

Edit: Yeah, so I just looked this up. This isn't a "record," well, maybe a record for Trump but Obama raised 47M in 2011. Even Andrew Yang raised like 15M in Q4. I would delete this post @UCFKnight85 these numbers are pretty bad.
 
Last edited:
Bernie Sanders raised 35 million by himself and he's polling at like 18% in the primary. I just don't think 45 million in 2020 is even close to good when you are the leader of a consolidated ticket. Sure it's probably higher than Obama's numbers from 2012 but that's the last legit comparison and it's from 8 years ago. This actually seems bad for Trump and I'm not surprised given the polling support for his removal from office.

Edit: Yeah, so I just looked this up. This isn't a "record," well, maybe a record for Trump but Obama raised 47M in 2011. Even Andrew Yang raised like 15M in Q4. I would delete this post @UCFKnight85 these numbers are pretty bad.

[roll]

It’s a record for Trumps campaign, you petty nitwit

Look at how triggered and butthurt you are over this thread
 
[roll]

It’s a record for Trumps campaign, you petty nitwit

Look at how triggered and butthurt you are over this thread


Aaaaaand right to name calling when your partisan bullshit lies get exposed.

Why don't you stick to supporting child rapists like you do on a weekly basis, as least you won't look like a hypocrite.
 
First the polls in every swing state turned against the Democrat led, partisan impeachment debacle.

Now the Trump campaign just raised a record $46M in Q4 due largely to the overwhelming backlash against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff's shameless actions.
This OP uses one fact to justify a whole bunch of bullsh*t assertions.

Yes, Trump raised a record $46M in Q4. There's your fact. However, you use it to have us believe it was "largely due to the overwhelming backlash" against the Dems.

Really?
Given that nearly half the country want him thrown out of office, I don't know where the hell you get the notion there's some amazing, new groundswell of support for Trump. Far from it.

I know this might come as a shock to some of you but all sitting Presidents -- even one as horrible as Trump -- garner considerable campaign support for reelection. Wow, big donations to the campaign of the person in power. What a shocker, huh? :)

GWB raises 187M for his reelection and Obama raised 690M for his reelection 8 years later. I would assume Trump will top that this year...all because of those villainous Dems in Congress, right 85? :) :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
[roll]

You know something's good when the most butthurt lefties are coming into the thread to spin things and rant incoherently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
If only you understood how anything works before commenting
I know how he funnels money into his personal accounts and DGAF about campaign finance laws (Michael Cohen says hello). That's been well-documented.

Try again.
 
I know how he funnels money into his personal accounts and DGAF about campaign finance laws (Michael Cohen says hello). That's been well-documented.

Try again.

So basically you’re just making shit up as you go again
 
I like how “half the country wants him thrown out of office” is supposed to mean something. Half the country wanted President Obama thrown out, and President Bush, and plenty (most?) of others.
 
I like how “half the country wants him thrown out of office” is supposed to mean something. Half the country wanted President Obama thrown out, and President Bush, and plenty (most?) of others.

Trump is fundraising well off this insanity from the left
 
I like how “half the country wants him thrown out of office” is supposed to mean something. Half the country wanted President Obama thrown out, and President Bush, and plenty (most?) of others.
Bullsh*t. Of course opposition party supporters (nearly half the country either way) didn’t vote for the President. Does that mean they believed he should be thrown out of office for high crimes? Of course not.
 
So basically you’re just making shit up as you go again
He’s not making it up but he’s not quite right either. The Trump campaign uses Trump Inc. facilities and services and pays for those services. This is legal. It’s also not the same as funneling it straight into his accounts for personal gain.

Where it gets fuzzy is how much Trump Inc. charges for those services. There’s evidence that they’re charging above market rate in a lot of instances. I don’t think there’s any restriction on finding the lowest bidder or justifying rates though, so again it’s all legal. Congress could change the laws but they’re the ones who set up the system so that they can have family members make 6 figures as “mail processors” and such.
 

Imagine claiming that $46M in campaign donations is going straight to Trump's pockets, then linking me to a story about a settlement that revolves entirely around some petty NY law regarding how charities are chosen as some sort of "proof". Talk about delusional. The story flat out says that the NY office went after Trump because of the method of charity choice, not that it actually ended up in his families' bank accounts.

I guess it's easier to go around believing Maddow conspiracy theories!
 
... then linking me to a story about a settlement that revolves entirely around some petty NY law regarding how charities are chosen as some sort of "proof". Talk about delusional.
No, delusional would be defending Trump's fraud charitable foundation.

The mindboggling part of the settlement regarding the Foundation's gross abuses is that nobody in the family went to jail.
 
Nope you’re wrong. Read this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-the-gop-raised-almost-half-a-billion-dollars-last-year--and-still-had-nearly-200-million-heading-into-2020/2020/01/03/10ba1612-2dad-11ea-bcd4-24597950008f_story.html?outputType=amp

600,000 new donors since the impeachment debacle began. 600 freaking thousand. That’s not just a coincidence.

Also the RNC raised over $230M last year while the DNC raised just $85M and is in debt.

Its election season. As the primaries ramp up, more people donate.
 

I havent followed the charity thing at all, so I'm a little bit confused by the USAtoday article. It wasn't a criminal charge, it was a civil suit. It sounds like the claim is that he received donations, which he then gave to charities, who then donated to his campaign. Is that right?
 
Imagine claiming that $46M in campaign donations is going straight to Trump's pockets, then linking me to a story about a settlement that revolves entirely around some petty NY law regarding how charities are chosen as some sort of "proof". Talk about delusional. The story flat out says that the NY office went after Trump because of the method of charity choice, not that it actually ended up in his families' bank accounts.

I guess it's easier to go around believing Maddow conspiracy theories!

Not a conspiracy theory, it's real and well documented, like your degree from Trump U.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
I havent followed the charity thing at all, so I'm a little bit confused by the USAtoday article. It wasn't a criminal charge, it was a civil suit. It sounds like the claim is that he received donations, which he then gave to charities, who then donated to his campaign. Is that right?
Basically this is the 'fallout' from his 'skipping' the one debate to do a charity fundraiser in early 2016.

Under New York Law, as a New York resident, that was against the law. Trump isn't the first one to run afoul of that law, just the first one where millions were involved. In fact, the Clintons and others have done similar fundraisers (actually, far less beneficial**), but as non-New York residents. Although Hillary herself quickly had issues when she became a New York resident (when she carpetbagged), backing out of several 'last second.'

The 'bigger story' of this whole Trump episode is rather sad.

Trump gathered over $6M pledges, and let the donors designate their charities, not Trump's. The Trump Foundation just assisted in the 'paperwork' and 'relationships.' Unfortunately, with the US Media bashing, and 'shaming' of any companies and individuals donating, as well as the charities involved. So it was first ended up being cut to just over $4M, and then finally only $2.8M, although Trump cut over $1M ($1.2-1.3M I believe) of his own money (not the charity) to bring it back up over $4M total.

In fact, the issue with 'cutting checks' and other 'logistics' was due to the US Media's demonizations and shamings. It was completely sad, and really pissed me off.

Now the final insult is that only because Trump is a New York resident, Trump is going to be on-the-hook for the other $2.8M as himself. Kinda sad. Also explains why he finally moved to Florida. This is one episode where Trump actually did something really good, far better than any other politician I've evern seen in decades. The US Media not only skewed him, but cost veterans charities nearly $3.5M of the over $6M originally (although Trump made up for about $1.2-1.3M of those original pledges lost).

It was a genuine, heartfelt move that he did, and I wish more politicians did similarly. But New York law is New York law, and Trump, as a resident, screwed up in the end, despite the law that doesn't apply to most anyone else who is a resident of the other 49 states, DC, let alone other territories. I mean, in DC, this is 'every day' type BS, politicians and charity. So now he's on-the-hook for another $2.8M. Heck, Trump even used to do these for the Clintons!

**SIDE NOTE: Again, a lot of politicians do a lot of charity + fund raising (for their own campaign), and even Hillary -- who lambasted Trump -- quickly got called out by non-partisan charity groups that skewered her, and her husband, for doing a lot of golf and other, far less 'beneficial,' charity events for veterans (let alone some with Trump in the past). Make no mistake, the supermajority of the veterans charities -- named by the donors (there were originally around 2-3 dozen) -- were highly regarded, rated nearly all 3, 4 and 5 stars (out of 5) by independent, veteran groups, that the event raised money for.
 
Basically this is the 'fallout' from his 'skipping' the one debate to do a charity fundraiser in early 2016.

Under New York Law, as a New York resident, that was against the law. Trump isn't the first one to run afoul of that law, just the first one where millions were involved. In fact, the Clintons and others have done similar fundraisers (actually, far less beneficial**), but as non-New York residents. Although Hillary herself quickly had issues when she became a New York resident (when she carpetbagged), backing out of several 'last second.'

The 'bigger story' of this whole Trump episode is rather sad.

Trump gathered over $6M pledges, and let the donors designate their charities, not Trump's. The Trump Foundation just assisted in the 'paperwork' and 'relationships.' Unfortunately, with the US Media bashing, and 'shaming' of any companies and individuals donating, as well as the charities involved. So it was first ended up being cut to just over $4M, and then finally only $2.8M, although Trump cut over $1M ($1.2-1.3M I believe) of his own money (not the charity) to bring it back up over $4M total.

In fact, the issue with 'cutting checks' and other 'logistics' was due to the US Media's demonizations and shamings. It was completely sad, and really pissed me off.

Now the final insult is that only because Trump is a New York resident, Trump is going to be on-the-hook for the other $2.8M as himself. Kinda sad. Also explains why he finally moved to Florida. This is one episode where Trump actually did something really good, far better than any other politician I've evern seen in decades. The US Media not only skewed him, but cost veterans charities nearly $3.5M of the over $6M originally (although Trump made up for about $1.2-1.3M of those original pledges lost).

It was a genuine, heartfelt move that he did, and I wish more politicians did similarly. But New York law is New York law, and Trump, as a resident, screwed up in the end, despite the law that doesn't apply to most anyone else who is a resident of the other 49 states, DC, let alone other territories. I mean, in DC, this is 'every day' type BS, politicians and charity. So now he's on-the-hook for another $2.8M. Heck, Trump even used to do these for the Clintons!

**SIDE NOTE: Again, a lot of politicians do a lot of charity + fund raising (for their own campaign), and even Hillary -- who lambasted Trump -- quickly got called out by non-partisan charity groups that skewered her, and her husband, for doing a lot of golf and other, far less 'beneficial,' charity events for veterans (let alone some with Trump in the past). Make no mistake, the supermajority of the veterans charities -- named by the donors (there were originally around 2-3 dozen) -- were highly regarded, rated nearly all 3, 4 and 5 stars (out of 5) by independent, veteran groups, that the event raised money for.

That was a lot of words but I still dont get what happened that was wrong. Was the charity siphoning off money for the trump family? If so that would probably be a crime but it sounds like this was a civil case, which I dont understand at all.
 
Speaking of family making money off of political parents, while Mommy was in the State Department, Chelsea Clinton sat on the boards of IAC investments making more than $300k, held a position as a special correspondent for NBC in 2013 and 2014 at probably $600k/year, and added the Expedia group board in 2017 making at least $250k yearly.. A decent chunk of her IAC pay was in stock options that have doubled or more over the years. That’s in addition to her pay for the Clinton Foundation. The common thread with 2 of those is the controlling interest in Expedia and IAC is the same guy, Barry Diller, who is a close “friend” of the Clintons. I’m sure he was just taken aback at the skill and intellect of the 30 year old and thought she just had to be on the board of a serious investment group.

I mean, at some point I say good for her. Also gotta think it was hard as hell to work those four jobs at the production level to earn that kind of pay especially when she didn’t really have a lot of experience in any of those kind of industries. But then I remember all of the wealth envy lefties that voted for Hillary while also vilifying anyone who had built up some wealth off their own labor. Maybe someday you’ll see through the veil your Democrat politicians have placed in front of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Speaking of family making money off of political parents, while Mommy was in the State Department, Chelsea Clinton sat on the boards of IAC investments making more than $300k, held a position as a special correspondent for NBC in 2013 and 2014 at probably $600k/year, and added the Expedia group board in 2017 making at least $250k yearly.. A decent chunk of her IAC pay was in stock options that have doubled or more over the years. That’s in addition to her pay for the Clinton Foundation. The common thread with 2 of those is the controlling interest in Expedia and IAC is the same guy, Barry Diller, who is a close “friend” of the Clintons. I’m sure he was just taken aback at the skill and intellect of the 30 year old and thought she just had to be on the board of a serious investment group.

I mean, at some point I say good for her. Also gotta think it was hard as hell to work those four jobs at the production level to earn that kind of pay especially when she didn’t really have a lot of experience in any of those kind of industries. But then I remember all of the wealth envy lefties that voted for Hillary while also vilifying anyone who had built up some wealth off their own labor. Maybe someday you’ll see through the veil your Democrat politicians have placed in front of you.

I don't think people on the left deny that kids from powerful families get special privileges, including of the course the Trump kids which the right apparently has no issue with. In saying that, Chelsea also has degrees from Stanford, Oxford, and Columbia, so let's not act like she isn't qualified to do anything. To say she had advantages is more than fair, but to make her out to be some sort of complete idiot like you are trying to do is not fair. And plenty of 30 years olds are successful, so I am not sure why you think being 30 is somehow a negative.
 
I don't think people on the left deny that kids from powerful families get special privileges, including of the course the Trump kids which the right apparently has no issue with. In saying that, Chelsea also has degrees from Stanford, Oxford, and Columbia, so let's not act like she isn't qualified to do anything. To say she had advantages is more than fair, but to make her out to be some sort of complete idiot like you are trying to do is not fair. And plenty of 30 years olds are successful, so I am not sure why you think being 30 is somehow a negative.
Sure, there are 30 year olds that have developed massively successful companies, such as Google, Facebook, etc. Absolutely these are the types of people you'd expect to see on the boards of other companies. At 30, she is 8 years removed from college and don't tell me that her experience in those 8 years merits the positions that she held. Chelsea Clinton is not on the boards for her industry or corporate experience. She's got a lot of degrees. Great. Even more evidence that she hasn't gotten the kind of experience that should have been a qualification for a board position. And I can certainly say that she hasn't acquired the skill for the position and it wasn't her intellect that they selected her for without implying that she was an idiot

There is a difference with the Trump kids that you fail to recognize. They work(ed) for the family businesses. They weren't out there getting cherry board spots with powerful allies in positions for which they were underqualified while their parent was in a government office. I have no problem whatsoever with Chelsea Clinton working for the family foundation. The problem comes when an outsider provides an otherwise unattainable position for the family member of an active government worker who has the ability to affect said outsider's business or fortunes.

So sure, if it was simply IAC and Expedia wanting to claim that they have a President's kid on the board, that's cool. But man it looks sketchy when the parent is still in the government. And shake my head at people with the party of equal outcome policies and yet you vote for people whose actions are anything but.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT