And the 2020 winner is ... dangerous distrust

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

Idk. Seems like it’s the same as it ever was. 
 

 

crosseyed and painless dot mpg

[homersapien 11,409]

19 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I am responding to the politico poll you posted which happens be the same one that the article homer provided linked to.

The information I provided is right there provided by politico just have to read the entire article. Out of that 1987 polled, only 715 identify as republicans. 680 people think the election outcome was unfair so assuming that all 680 were republican that would be 95% think it was rigged. And 1049 of the 1987 respondents voted for Biden. They don't break it down to how many of the 715 think it is rigged. But, to say that 70% of republicans think this election was rigged because of a survey that doesn't even back that up and only 36% of the people identify as republican is comical.

 

Well, I went to buy groceries this morning and checked in on the way to see what local talk radio (106.3 WORD, The "Tara" show") was railing about.  It was all "election fraud".

And then there's this:

Trump raises more than $150 million appealing to false election claims

By

Josh Dawsey and 

Michelle Ye Hee Lee

November 30, 2020

President Trump’s political operation has raised more than $150 million since Election Day, using a blizzard of misleading appeals about the election to shatter fundraising records set during the campaign, according to people with knowledge of the contributions.

The influx of political donations is one reason Trump and some allies are inclined to continue a legal onslaught and public affairs blitz focused on baseless claims of election fraud, even as their attempts have repeatedly failed in court and as key states continue to certify wins for President-elect Joe Biden.

Much of the money raised since the election is likely to go into an account for the president to use on political activities after he leaves office, while some of the contributions will go toward what’s left of the legal fight.

The people with knowledge of the fundraising amounts spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal numbers. The Trump campaign declined to comment.

The surge of donations is largely from small-dollar donors, campaign officials say, tapping into the president’s base of loyal and fervent donors who tend to contribute the most when they feel the president is under siege or facing unfair political attacks. The campaign has sent about 500 post-election fundraising pitches to donors, often with hyperbolic language about voter fraud and the like.

“I need you now more than ever,” says one recent email that claims to be from the president. “The Recount Results were BOGUS,” another email subject line reads.

“Our democracy and freedom is at risk like never before, which is why I’m reaching out to you now with an URGENT request,” reads an email to donors from Vice President Pence. “President Trump and I need our STRONGEST supporters, like YOU, to join the Election Defense Task Force. This group will be responsible for DEFENDING the Election from voter fraud, and we really need you to step up to the front lines of this battle.”

The donations are purportedly being solicited for the Official Election Defense Fund, which is blazed in all red across the Trump campaign’s website, with an ominous picture of the president outside the White House.

There is no such account, however. The fundraising requests are being made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. As of Nov. 18, that committee also shares its funds with Save America, a new leadership PAC that Trump set up in early November and which he can use to fund his post-presidency activities.

The money raised since Nov. 3 is a massive haul for such a short period, especially after the election, when losing campaigns typically ramp down their fundraising operation. By comparison, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee raised $125 million in the second quarter of 2020, according to federal records. The campaign account’s best single month was September, when it raised $81 million, according to available data.

The contributions, from thousands of grass-roots donors across the country, are split into several accounts, including the leadership PAC that is loosely regulated and could be used to personally benefit the president after he leaves the White House.

Trump solicits ‘election defense’ donations that also finance his new leadership PAC

According to the fine print in the latest fundraising appeals, 75 percent of each contribution to the joint fundraising committee would first go toward the Save America leadership PAC and the rest would be shared with the party committee, to help with the party’s operating expenses. This effectively means that the vast majority of low-dollar donations under the current agreement would go toward financing the president’s new leadership PAC, instead of efforts to support the party or to finance voting lawsuits.

“Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an ‘official election defense fund’ are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaign’s debt or funding his post-presidential political operation,” said Brendan Fischer, who directs federal regulatory work at the Campaign Legal Center, which supports greater restrictions on the role of money in politics. “The average donor who gives in response to Trump’s appeal for funds to ‘stop the fraud’ likely doesn’t realize that their money is actually retiring Trump’s debt or funding his leadership PAC.”

Fischer said that “only bigger donors who’ve maxed-out to Trump’s campaign or the RNC will see any portion of their contribution go to dedicated recount or legal funds.”

“The RNC has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last two years funding legal efforts in multiple states, and we continue the fight for election integrity across the country,” RNC spokesperson Mike Reed said.

The leadership PAC could be spent, for example, to pay for events at his own properties, or to finance his travel or personal expenses. There are very few limitations on how money going to the group can be spent.

On Nov. 18, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee struck a formal agreement with Save America, the Trump campaign and the RNC to raise money together through the joint fundraising committee and share the funds, according to federal records. By Nov. 19, the contribution share to Save America PAC had changed to 75 percent from 60 percent as it had been for more than a week, according to a review of the fundraising appeals.

Leadership PACs do not face the same restrictions on “personal use” expenses as candidate committees do. They were established to allow members of Congress to raise money for their allies on Capitol Hill through fundraising vehicles separate from their campaign committees. The money is often used for what is called donor cultivation: feting wealthy supporters in the hopes that they will write big checks back to the leadership PAC and other committees.

Over the years, leadership PACs have become must-have accessories on Capitol Hill, as well as among former elected officials who want to retain their political influence by helping other candidates raise money or by raising money on their behalf.

One person with knowledge of the contributions said many were repeat donors, and that emails with dire language about the president potentially losing tended to ratchet up the contributions. The person said the campaign had a plan before Election Day to dial up requests for money if the result wasn’t immediately clear.

“Trump is making hay while the sun is shining. He’s taking advantage of all the free media coverage to pay off his campaign debt and fill his coffers for whatever comes next,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. He added: “I would rather give to Romney 2012 than Trump 2020 at this point.”

In an interview earlier this month, Texas donor Doug Deason said “some people are writing big checks because they are fired up.”

On Monday, the final day of the monthly fundraising period, Trump was on track to reach 500 fundraising emails. In November, the Trump operation set a record for monthly fundraising requests from the campaign, according to a tally by @TrumpEmail, a Twitter account that has tracked the president’s fundraising requests since January 2018.

The campaign had struggled some with finances earlier this fall, officials said, with campaign manager Bill Stepien deciding to cut TV spending because he feared they could run out of money. Officials said that some money was wasted on unnecessary expenditures, such as a pricey Super Bowl commercial and blimps flying over the skylines of states. But some Trump advisers said the money that has come in after the election was a reason the campaign should have never made the cuts.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-than-150-million-appealing-to-false-election-claims/2020/11/30/82e922e6-3347-11eb-afe6-e4dbee9689f8_story.html

 

So, have you sent in your contribution yet wdefromtx??

Dear Leader needs your help to to counter the fraudulent election. No doubt any amount would be appreciated.

[homersapien 11,409]

19 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

That first part.......cutting out fracking for example or when a dem politician says end fossil fuels in the US so we can save the planet is great for getting votes but isn't going to translate to much if we don't get other countries up to speed on clean technology. 

 

You seem to be suggesting cutting our consumption of fossil fuels and exerting leadership / persuasion for other countries to do the same are mutually exclusive.  They aren't.

And such proposals aren't "great for getting votes" unless they have popular support.  Most people - at least the non-Republicans - understand the mandate for us to make the world safe for humans. 

[homersapien 11,409]

20 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Like my friend who thought he was doing something good by buying the new "eco friendly" iPhone with reduced packaging that ended up ordering a charger they eliminated to reduce the packaging. Sounds great, but wrong way of doing things. 

 

 

And what does Apple's actions have to do with Democratic policies?    Man, you are really grasping here.

A far better example - ecologically speaking - of unintended or counter-productive consequences would be the use of ETOH (from corn in gasoline).  Course that's an idea that is pushed primarily by "red", corn-producing states. 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_for_environment

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I went to buy groceries this morning and checked in on the way to see what local talk radio (106.3 WORD, The "Tara" show") was railing about.  It was all "election fraud".

And then there's this:

Trump raises more than $150 million appealing to false election claims

By

Josh Dawsey and 

Michelle Ye Hee Lee

November 30, 2020

President Trump’s political operation has raised more than $150 million since Election Day, using a blizzard of misleading appeals about the election to shatter fundraising records set during the campaign, according to people with knowledge of the contributions.

The influx of political donations is one reason Trump and some allies are inclined to continue a legal onslaught and public affairs blitz focused on baseless claims of election fraud, even as their attempts have repeatedly failed in court and as key states continue to certify wins for President-elect Joe Biden.

Much of the money raised since the election is likely to go into an account for the president to use on political activities after he leaves office, while some of the contributions will go toward what’s left of the legal fight.

The people with knowledge of the fundraising amounts spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal numbers. The Trump campaign declined to comment.

The surge of donations is largely from small-dollar donors, campaign officials say, tapping into the president’s base of loyal and fervent donors who tend to contribute the most when they feel the president is under siege or facing unfair political attacks. The campaign has sent about 500 post-election fundraising pitches to donors, often with hyperbolic language about voter fraud and the like.

“I need you now more than ever,” says one recent email that claims to be from the president. “The Recount Results were BOGUS,” another email subject line reads.

“Our democracy and freedom is at risk like never before, which is why I’m reaching out to you now with an URGENT request,” reads an email to donors from Vice President Pence. “President Trump and I need our STRONGEST supporters, like YOU, to join the Election Defense Task Force. This group will be responsible for DEFENDING the Election from voter fraud, and we really need you to step up to the front lines of this battle.”

The donations are purportedly being solicited for the Official Election Defense Fund, which is blazed in all red across the Trump campaign’s website, with an ominous picture of the president outside the White House.

There is no such account, however. The fundraising requests are being made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. As of Nov. 18, that committee also shares its funds with Save America, a new leadership PAC that Trump set up in early November and which he can use to fund his post-presidency activities.

The money raised since Nov. 3 is a massive haul for such a short period, especially after the election, when losing campaigns typically ramp down their fundraising operation. By comparison, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee raised $125 million in the second quarter of 2020, according to federal records. The campaign account’s best single month was September, when it raised $81 million, according to available data.

The contributions, from thousands of grass-roots donors across the country, are split into several accounts, including the leadership PAC that is loosely regulated and could be used to personally benefit the president after he leaves the White House.

Trump solicits ‘election defense’ donations that also finance his new leadership PAC

According to the fine print in the latest fundraising appeals, 75 percent of each contribution to the joint fundraising committee would first go toward the Save America leadership PAC and the rest would be shared with the party committee, to help with the party’s operating expenses. This effectively means that the vast majority of low-dollar donations under the current agreement would go toward financing the president’s new leadership PAC, instead of efforts to support the party or to finance voting lawsuits.

“Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an ‘official election defense fund’ are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaign’s debt or funding his post-presidential political operation,” said Brendan Fischer, who directs federal regulatory work at the Campaign Legal Center, which supports greater restrictions on the role of money in politics. “The average donor who gives in response to Trump’s appeal for funds to ‘stop the fraud’ likely doesn’t realize that their money is actually retiring Trump’s debt or funding his leadership PAC.”

Fischer said that “only bigger donors who’ve maxed-out to Trump’s campaign or the RNC will see any portion of their contribution go to dedicated recount or legal funds.”

“The RNC has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last two years funding legal efforts in multiple states, and we continue the fight for election integrity across the country,” RNC spokesperson Mike Reed said.

The leadership PAC could be spent, for example, to pay for events at his own properties, or to finance his travel or personal expenses. There are very few limitations on how money going to the group can be spent.

On Nov. 18, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee struck a formal agreement with Save America, the Trump campaign and the RNC to raise money together through the joint fundraising committee and share the funds, according to federal records. By Nov. 19, the contribution share to Save America PAC had changed to 75 percent from 60 percent as it had been for more than a week, according to a review of the fundraising appeals.

Leadership PACs do not face the same restrictions on “personal use” expenses as candidate committees do. They were established to allow members of Congress to raise money for their allies on Capitol Hill through fundraising vehicles separate from their campaign committees. The money is often used for what is called donor cultivation: feting wealthy supporters in the hopes that they will write big checks back to the leadership PAC and other committees.

Over the years, leadership PACs have become must-have accessories on Capitol Hill, as well as among former elected officials who want to retain their political influence by helping other candidates raise money or by raising money on their behalf.

One person with knowledge of the contributions said many were repeat donors, and that emails with dire language about the president potentially losing tended to ratchet up the contributions. The person said the campaign had a plan before Election Day to dial up requests for money if the result wasn’t immediately clear.

“Trump is making hay while the sun is shining. He’s taking advantage of all the free media coverage to pay off his campaign debt and fill his coffers for whatever comes next,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. He added: “I would rather give to Romney 2012 than Trump 2020 at this point.”

In an interview earlier this month, Texas donor Doug Deason said “some people are writing big checks because they are fired up.”

On Monday, the final day of the monthly fundraising period, Trump was on track to reach 500 fundraising emails. In November, the Trump operation set a record for monthly fundraising requests from the campaign, according to a tally by @TrumpEmail, a Twitter account that has tracked the president’s fundraising requests since January 2018.

The campaign had struggled some with finances earlier this fall, officials said, with campaign manager Bill Stepien deciding to cut TV spending because he feared they could run out of money. Officials said that some money was wasted on unnecessary expenditures, such as a pricey Super Bowl commercial and blimps flying over the skylines of states. But some Trump advisers said the money that has come in after the election was a reason the campaign should have never made the cuts.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-than-150-million-appealing-to-false-election-claims/2020/11/30/82e922e6-3347-11eb-afe6-e4dbee9689f8_story.html

 

So, have you sent in your contribution yet wdefromtx??

Dear Leader needs your help to to counter the fraudulent election. No doubt any amount would be appreciated.

Why would I send in money for a candidate I didn't vote for? Sounds like he is milking his base almost as good as the democrats though. If people want to throw their hard earned money at him or any candidate or party good for them. I have 99 charities I donate to but a candidate ain't one......(some will get the reference.)

[homersapien 11,409]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Why would I send in money for a candidate I didn't vote for? Sounds like he is milking his base almost as good as the democrats though. If people want to throw their hard earned money at him or any candidate or party good for them. I have 99 charities I donate to but a candidate ain't one......(some will get the reference.)

"Almost" as good?     Trump is conning his base with pure lies.  I don't see that happening with Democrats.

But the question on the table is how many MAGAs believe the election was a fraud?  Polls - and my direct observations - say most of them.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

20 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Like my friend who thought he was doing something good by buying the new "eco friendly" iPhone with reduced packaging that ended up ordering a charger they eliminated to reduce the packaging. Sounds great, but wrong way of doing things. 

This is a tangent I know, but Apple knows some people will end up ordering a new charger.  But they also know that for every one that does that, probably 5, 10, 20, or more will simply continue using their old one they had from their previous phone.  That combined with the reduced packaging, the costs and emissions saved by being able to transport more iPhones in fewer cases/vehicles will more than offset the users that go buy a new charger anyway.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, homersapien said:

"Almost" as good?     Trump is conning his base with pure lies.  I don't see that happening with Democrats.

But the question on the table is how many MAGAs believe the election was a fraud?  Polls - and my direct observations - say most of them.

Better have a better poll than the politico poll. Because if you dive into it, they don't have a sample size large enough of republicans to translate to a meaningful confidence level.

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Sounds like he is milking his base almost as good as the democrats though. If people want to throw their hard earned money at him or any candidate or party good for them.

But your whole premise was that Republicans thinking the election was rigged wasn't really a thing.

Still waiting on you to address the other two polls I provided to you that said 67% and 73% of Republicans think the election was rigged. But I'm guessing you're just gonna say "politico" again. 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a tangent I know, but Apple knows some people will end up ordering a new charger.  But they also know that for every one that does that, probably 5, 10, 20, or more will simply continue using their old one they had from their previous phone.  That combined with the reduced packaging, the costs and emissions saved by being able to transport more iPhones in fewer cases/vehicles will more than offset the users that go buy a new charger anyway.

So you buy into it as well.............Apple has no intention of really reducing emissions. If they did they wouldn't be building them in countries with hardly any environmental regulations. Not to mention the additional emissions for more travel from plant to plant. 

I am pretty sure that, that easily causes more pollution than whatever size of packaging they reduced. But if it makes people feel good for making a tiny contribution to helping the environment then that is great. But when my friend was touting Apple about how great it was that they are trying to help and he ordered a new charger on Amazon all I could do is shake my head. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

But your whole premise was that Republicans thinking the election was rigged wasn't really a thing.

Still waiting on you to address the other two polls I provided to you that said 67% and 73% of Republicans think the election was rigged. But I'm guessing you're just gonna say "politico" again. 

 

That five thirty eight article links right back to the same politico poll. That was the only other link I recall, other than something you linked for Bird or whoever. 

 

67% of the 794 polled think it was rigged......if that makes you feel good about yourself.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

But your whole premise was that Republicans thinking the election was rigged wasn't really a thing.

Still waiting on you to address the other two polls I provided to you that said 67% and 73% of Republicans think the election was rigged. But I'm guessing you're just gonna say "politico" again. 

 

And to clarify I said that I don't buy into thinking 70% of all republicans think it was rigged. So don't try to spin what I said.

But since you are hanging your hat on a survey with a very small sample size maybe we can assume that the actual percentage is around 42%.....considering that is the number of democrats that thought 2016 was rigged....

tabs_HP_Rigged_Election_20161114.pdf

[TitanTiger 20,506]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So you buy into it as well.............Apple has no intention of really reducing emissions. If they did they wouldn't be building them in countries with hardly any environmental regulations. Not to mention the additional emissions for more travel from plant to plant. 

I don't know about "buying into it," I just follow the logic.  And right now, it's not feasible from a technological standpoint, a manufacturing capacity standpoint, or in terms of cost to build them outside of the countries they build them (currently China, India and I think some in Brazil).

Apple does plenty of other things to reduce emissions and reduce waste.

 

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I am pretty sure that, that easily causes more pollution than whatever size of packaging they reduced. But if it makes people feel good for making a tiny contribution to helping the environment then that is great. But when my friend was touting Apple about how great it was that they are trying to help and he ordered a new charger on Amazon all I could do is shake my head. 

Right now, even if you had the capacity to do so, you can't build a phone like that in the US or Western Europe where environmental regs are better.  Not unless you think you can get people to pay $2500 for an iPhone, which isn't likely.  So all electronics of this nature are going to be built in countries with less than ideal environmental regs.  It's simply something that right now cannot be controlled or changed.  The options are to build there or just not build at all.  So given that, what can you do to reduce, reuse, recycle, reduce emissions and so on?  Apple does quite a few things actually including investing heavily in renewable energy to power their plants.  As of 2018 all of Apple's own facilities were 100% powered by renewable energy and over 20 of their suppliers as well - and that includes several of them in China.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Now, you can dismiss that with the idea that unless you're doing everything possible its useless to do anything at all, but that logic doesn't hold in my book.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

21 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

You mean same one that had 1,987 respondents where 42% self identify as democrats and 24% as independents so only 36% were actually republicans? Same one where about 50% said they don't approve of trumps performance? Maybe they are just using the 69% that think the country is off on the wrong track and misrepresenting the real facts. You would know all this if you read the document on their methodology and how they conducted this survey. But, who would want facts to get in the way of things.

 

Sounds more like dems think it was rigged to me. 

Timeout.  The notion that a properly conducted random sample of 715 Republicans is too small a sample size doesn't wash and to say it does only says that you don't seem to understand how random statistical polling works.  Obviously, the larger the sample size you get, the lower your margin of error will be.  But this is plenty big enough to get a gauge on attitudes among Republicans.

Take issue with the randomization of the sample if you like.  Take issue if you feel the question was leading or biased.  If you have good reason to question those or other aspects, offer up your evidence for it and we can discuss it.  But "too small a sample" isn't a valid reason.

[DKW 86 7,437]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I went to buy groceries this morning and checked in on the way to see what local talk radio (106.3 WORD, The "Tara" show") was railing about.  It was all "election fraud".

And then there's this:

Trump raises more than $150 million appealing to false election claims

By

Josh Dawsey and 

Michelle Ye Hee Lee

November 30, 2020

President Trump’s political operation has raised more than $150 million since Election Day, using a blizzard of misleading appeals about the election to shatter fundraising records set during the campaign, according to people with knowledge of the contributions.

The influx of political donations is one reason Trump and some allies are inclined to continue a legal onslaught and public affairs blitz focused on baseless claims of election fraud, even as their attempts have repeatedly failed in court and as key states continue to certify wins for President-elect Joe Biden.

Much of the money raised since the election is likely to go into an account for the president to use on political activities after he leaves office, while some of the contributions will go toward what’s left of the legal fight.

The people with knowledge of the fundraising amounts spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal numbers. The Trump campaign declined to comment.

The surge of donations is largely from small-dollar donors, campaign officials say, tapping into the president’s base of loyal and fervent donors who tend to contribute the most when they feel the president is under siege or facing unfair political attacks. The campaign has sent about 500 post-election fundraising pitches to donors, often with hyperbolic language about voter fraud and the like.

“I need you now more than ever,” says one recent email that claims to be from the president. “The Recount Results were BOGUS,” another email subject line reads.

“Our democracy and freedom is at risk like never before, which is why I’m reaching out to you now with an URGENT request,” reads an email to donors from Vice President Pence. “President Trump and I need our STRONGEST supporters, like YOU, to join the Election Defense Task Force. This group will be responsible for DEFENDING the Election from voter fraud, and we really need you to step up to the front lines of this battle.”

The donations are purportedly being solicited for the Official Election Defense Fund, which is blazed in all red across the Trump campaign’s website, with an ominous picture of the president outside the White House.

There is no such account, however. The fundraising requests are being made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. As of Nov. 18, that committee also shares its funds with Save America, a new leadership PAC that Trump set up in early November and which he can use to fund his post-presidency activities.

The money raised since Nov. 3 is a massive haul for such a short period, especially after the election, when losing campaigns typically ramp down their fundraising operation. By comparison, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee raised $125 million in the second quarter of 2020, according to federal records. The campaign account’s best single month was September, when it raised $81 million, according to available data.

The contributions, from thousands of grass-roots donors across the country, are split into several accounts, including the leadership PAC that is loosely regulated and could be used to personally benefit the president after he leaves the White House.

Trump solicits ‘election defense’ donations that also finance his new leadership PAC

According to the fine print in the latest fundraising appeals, 75 percent of each contribution to the joint fundraising committee would first go toward the Save America leadership PAC and the rest would be shared with the party committee, to help with the party’s operating expenses. This effectively means that the vast majority of low-dollar donations under the current agreement would go toward financing the president’s new leadership PAC, instead of efforts to support the party or to finance voting lawsuits.

“Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an ‘official election defense fund’ are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaign’s debt or funding his post-presidential political operation,” said Brendan Fischer, who directs federal regulatory work at the Campaign Legal Center, which supports greater restrictions on the role of money in politics. “The average donor who gives in response to Trump’s appeal for funds to ‘stop the fraud’ likely doesn’t realize that their money is actually retiring Trump’s debt or funding his leadership PAC.”

Fischer said that “only bigger donors who’ve maxed-out to Trump’s campaign or the RNC will see any portion of their contribution go to dedicated recount or legal funds.”

“The RNC has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last two years funding legal efforts in multiple states, and we continue the fight for election integrity across the country,” RNC spokesperson Mike Reed said.

The leadership PAC could be spent, for example, to pay for events at his own properties, or to finance his travel or personal expenses. There are very few limitations on how money going to the group can be spent.

On Nov. 18, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee struck a formal agreement with Save America, the Trump campaign and the RNC to raise money together through the joint fundraising committee and share the funds, according to federal records. By Nov. 19, the contribution share to Save America PAC had changed to 75 percent from 60 percent as it had been for more than a week, according to a review of the fundraising appeals.

Leadership PACs do not face the same restrictions on “personal use” expenses as candidate committees do. They were established to allow members of Congress to raise money for their allies on Capitol Hill through fundraising vehicles separate from their campaign committees. The money is often used for what is called donor cultivation: feting wealthy supporters in the hopes that they will write big checks back to the leadership PAC and other committees.

Over the years, leadership PACs have become must-have accessories on Capitol Hill, as well as among former elected officials who want to retain their political influence by helping other candidates raise money or by raising money on their behalf.

One person with knowledge of the contributions said many were repeat donors, and that emails with dire language about the president potentially losing tended to ratchet up the contributions. The person said the campaign had a plan before Election Day to dial up requests for money if the result wasn’t immediately clear.

“Trump is making hay while the sun is shining. He’s taking advantage of all the free media coverage to pay off his campaign debt and fill his coffers for whatever comes next,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. He added: “I would rather give to Romney 2012 than Trump 2020 at this point.”

In an interview earlier this month, Texas donor Doug Deason said “some people are writing big checks because they are fired up.”

On Monday, the final day of the monthly fundraising period, Trump was on track to reach 500 fundraising emails. In November, the Trump operation set a record for monthly fundraising requests from the campaign, according to a tally by @TrumpEmail, a Twitter account that has tracked the president’s fundraising requests since January 2018.

The campaign had struggled some with finances earlier this fall, officials said, with campaign manager Bill Stepien deciding to cut TV spending because he feared they could run out of money. Officials said that some money was wasted on unnecessary expenditures, such as a pricey Super Bowl commercial and blimps flying over the skylines of states. But some Trump advisers said the money that has come in after the election was a reason the campaign should have never made the cuts.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-than-150-million-appealing-to-false-election-claims/2020/11/30/82e922e6-3347-11eb-afe6-e4dbee9689f8_story.html

 

So, have you sent in your contribution yet wdefromtx??

Dear Leader needs your help to to counter the fraudulent election. No doubt any amount would be appreciated.

Was this really worth the server space? I doubt it. Look, Trump is going away and he is launching a network that there are rumors he has already raised >$200M for. All this doenst matter a wit.

We have these nut case howler monkeys that have for four years accused Trump of everything they could hallucinate. They have convinced half the nation that Trump and his Followers are Existential Threats to their lives. Trump is a clown, a conman, an a**hole, a douche, etc. He is uneducated. He is playing to some of his base, a base that is highly motivated.  Probably 95% of the screeching has been for nothing. Trump is going away. Some of you folks need to calm the **** down.

Trump lost, he is gone. He has literally exhausted all his cards. Please calm down and let this go away.
As far as Hunter Biden, you.ll have to ask why I even bring it up, Hunter is grown ass man. He is a trainwreck in every way in his life. If someone, somewhere, in the twitterverse or in the media hell that is America accused him of crazy stuff, I am sorry. But cumulatively..

THE LAST 12 YEARS HAS BEEN A s*** SHOW OF CRAZY IN THIS COUNTRY, ON BOTH SIDES. 

Those of you defending Trump, please wise up. Those of you BLINDLY and MINDLESSLY Supporting the Democrats. Yall need to sober up too. The Truth is that Both Parties Suck Raw Ass, they really do. Voting for either one these days is just crazy. I truly dont know how you cant see that on its face. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

15 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

That five thirty eight article links right back to the same politico poll. That was the only other link I recall, other than something you linked for Bird or whoever. 

67% of the 794 polled think it was rigged......if that makes you feel good about yourself.

Hah! You literally did just say politico again.

Nah, none of that makes me feel good about myself. Lord knows I wouldn't ever come here or engage in arguments with folks like yourself to accomplish that. 

[DKW 86 7,437]

Apple, Nike, Adidas, Coca-Cola Etc, Slave Labor????
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siminamistreanu/2020/03/02/study-links-nike-adidas-and-apple-to-forced-uighur-labor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-iphone-factory-2020-3?op=1

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/apple-nike-coca-cola-lobby-to-preserve-slavery-of-uighurs-by-communist-china/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/tech/apple-foxconn-china-labor-watch-trnd/index.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/uighur-muslims-china-forced-labour-work-xinjiang-apple-nike-bmw-sony-gap-a9371711.html

And on and on...Why do we see Slavery and Child Labor carried on by Apple, Nike, etc and it still goes on. Because both parties suck at this. NEITHER PARTY IS GOING TO STOP THIS.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Timeout.  The notion that a properly conducted random sample of 715 Republicans is too small a sample size doesn't wash and to say it does only says that you don't seem to understand how random statistical polling works.  Obviously, the larger the sample size you get, the lower your margin of error will be.  But this is plenty big enough to get a gauge on attitudes among Republicans.

Take issue with the randomization of the sample if you like.  Take issue if you feel the question was leading or biased.  If you have good reason to question those or other aspects, offer up your evidence for it and we can discuss it.  But "too small a sample" isn't a valid reason.

Thanks, and...

...Especially when there were two other polls (very clearly referred to, with links provided) totaling around 2300 respondents and coming within 2% and 4% of the same results. 

Also, there was a lot of talk leading up to the election about how polling trump voters wasn't effective because they were too ashamed to admit their choice. I have to imagine the same principle would apply here? 

I guess he'll need to personally interview all 70-whatever million trump voters to accept the results.

[homersapien 11,409]

36 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Timeout.  The notion that a properly conducted random sample of 715 Republicans is too small a sample size doesn't wash and to say it does only says that you don't seem to understand how random statistical polling works.  Obviously, the larger the sample size you get, the lower your margin of error will be.  But this is plenty big enough to get a gauge on attitudes among Republicans.

Take issue with the randomization of the sample if you like.  Take issue if you feel the question was leading or biased.  If you have good reason to question those or other aspects, offer up your evidence for it and we can discuss it.  But "too small a sample" isn't a valid reason.

Excellent points. 

Sample size is not as important as people might assume, and n=715 is quite adequate, statistically speaking. (As I recall, the statistical effects/impact of sample size starts to level off at n=8.)

Like you said though, proper randomization is critical.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

 

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Timeout.  The notion that a properly conducted random sample of 715 Republicans is too small a sample size doesn't wash and to say it does only says that you don't seem to understand how random statistical polling works.  Obviously, the larger the sample size you get, the lower your margin of error will be.  But this is plenty big enough to get a gauge on attitudes among Republicans.

Take issue with the randomization of the sample if you like.  Take issue if you feel the question was leading or biased.  If you have good reason to question those or other aspects, offer up your evidence for it and we can discuss it.  But "too small a sample" isn't a valid reason.

If you want a confidence level of about 75% then 794 is gets you close to a 2% margin of error. If you want to go with that, then good for you. But I wouldn't claim something as fact with such a low CI and not knowing how well it was randomized based on the R portion of it. They don't break down the geography enough to know what portion came from states that were highly contested or not. That would make a difference in opinion of respondents. Show me that breakdown.

 

Is it just bad now because more republicans think it is rigged than democrats in 2016? Which 42% thought it was rigged, were they duped by Hillary? 

 

It is funny how people put their head in the sand to try to claim moral superiority by their comments such as

"I feel like this keeps getting ignored. 

And I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that it would be the same were the shoe on the other foot."

[wdefromtx 3,159]

35 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Apple, Nike, Adidas, Coca-Cola Etc, Slave Labor????
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siminamistreanu/2020/03/02/study-links-nike-adidas-and-apple-to-forced-uighur-labor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-iphone-factory-2020-3?op=1

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/apple-nike-coca-cola-lobby-to-preserve-slavery-of-uighurs-by-communist-china/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/tech/apple-foxconn-china-labor-watch-trnd/index.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/uighur-muslims-china-forced-labour-work-xinjiang-apple-nike-bmw-sony-gap-a9371711.html

And on and on...Why do we see Slavery and Child Labor carried on by Apple, Nike, etc and it still goes on. Because both parties suck at this. NEITHER PARTY IS GOING TO STOP THIS.

 

Pfft, doesn't matter to the "moral superior" liberals. I mean if the shoe is on the other foot they would never ever think the election was rigged right? LMAO

[wdefromtx 3,159]

45 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Hah! You literally did just say politico again.

Nah, none of that makes me feel good about myself. Lord knows I wouldn't ever come here or engage in arguments with folks like yourself to accomplish that. 

The 538 linked referenced it.

Let's say it is 70% is accurate, why does it matter? Is it only bad because they aren't democrats? Or is it bad because more thought it was rigged than when Hillary lost? Is it ok for her to plant that seed of doubt in her voters? 

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Is it just bad now because more republicans think it is rigged than democrats in 2016?

Well, yes. Especially given that it's ~30% more. (Wait, do you suddenly believe in polls now that you're talking about HIllary?) And given that there is overwhelming evidence that there was in fact Russian interference that aided trump in 2016, and that the distrust in the 2020 election was created and fomented by trump himself.

Also, we wouldn't even still be talking about it if you hadn't tried to downplay it. Now, right on cue, you're trying to move the goalposts instead of just holding that L. 

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

It is funny how people put their head in the sand to try to claim moral superiority by their comments such as

"I feel like this keeps getting ignored. 

And I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that it would be the same were the shoe on the other foot."

Huh? What does that have to do with moral superiority? Intellectual superiority, maybe, but what does that have to do with morality? Dude, you're gasping. Just take a seat for a minute. 

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Pfft, doesn't matter to the "moral superior" liberals.

Who was that guy saying that it's not the politicians' fault, but it's the voters' fault because of how we communicate with each other? Seriously. All you ever do here is whine about how people talk to each other while saying this dumb s*** out of the other side of your mouth. You are such a disingenuous clown. 

[TitanTiger 20,506]

50 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If you want a confidence level of about 75% then 794 is gets you close to a 2% margin of error. If you want to go with that, then good for you. But I wouldn't claim something as fact with such a low CI and not knowing how well it was randomized based on the R portion of it. They don't break down the geography enough to know what portion came from states that were highly contested or not. That would make a difference in opinion of respondents. Show me that breakdown.

My math might be a little rusty on this since my study of this in college was a while back, but by my calculation, there's a 95% confidence level that the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was not "free and fair" is between 66.67% and 73.43%.  EDITED TO ADD:  Also, though polls usually average out the margin of error, it's technically more precise to do a MoE for each group.  So though the MoE for the entire poll is around +/- 2%, I calculated an MoE of +/-3.37% for just the Republicans.

Now as far as the sample being properly randomized, that's a different argument.  Like I said before, if you have an issue with whether the sample was properly randomized, it's a legit reason to question the result but you need to have something to go on, not just speculation because you don't like the answers.

 

Quote

Is it just bad now because more republicans think it is rigged than democrats in 2016? Which 42% thought it was rigged, were they duped by Hillary? 

I don't think 42% is a particularly good number to begin with, so yes, 66-73% is startlingly bad.

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Well, yes. Especially given that it's ~30% more. (Wait, do you suddenly believe in polls now that you're talking about HIllary?) And given that there is overwhelming evidence that there was in fact Russian interference that aided trump in 2016, and that the distrust in the 2020 election was created and fomented by trump himself.

Also, we wouldn't even still be talking about it if you hadn't tried to downplay it. Now, right on cue, you're trying to move the goalposts instead of just holding that L. 

Huh? What does that have to do with moral superiority? Intellectual superiority, maybe, but what does that have to do with morality? Dude, you're gasping. Just take a seat for a minute. 

Who was that guy saying that it's not the politicians' fault, but it's the voters' fault because of how we communicate with each other? Seriously. All you ever do here is whine about how people talk to each other while saying this dumb s*** out of the other side of your mouth. You are such a disingenuous clown. 

I would rather be a clown than an uninformed ignorant fool such as yourself. At least my morals aren't changing to fit whatever agenda I am pushing. If you were literate you would have read where I said if we are going to trust your poll size then presented you with one from 2016. I don't think either one to be that accurate for the record. 

But good job trying to justify the high ground, I mean personally I think we live in a society where we shouldn't have any distrust in our election process. So even 42% is an epic failure, but my standards are most likely higher than yours with what I expect.