• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump PAC has not used any of the $75M its raised this year to help fund election audits: report

Well, the Post brings home Pulitzer Prizes on a fairly regular basis. Their two lead reporters on the Trump regime tended to be highly accurate, all the way through. Indeed, no one is actually trying to refute any of it. Notwithstanding trump’s clownish denial, which is worthless.

I’ve read the Post since the 1970’s. It’s one of the three papers in this country whose reporting most closely resembles the events as they happened and as history winds up recording. The other two are the Times and the Wall Street Journal.

You’ll never be able to say that about Conservative Treehouse or the Epoch Times, or Q, or any of the garbage being peddled on the right wing social media safe spaces..

Oh, and you and I both know that the story is going to turn out to largely accurate. Don’t even bother to deny it.

We’ll know pretty soon, too.
And they trashed that reputation under their current owner.
 
I stand corrected. I misread the Post piece.

The report will be available in 8 days.

I have absolutely no doubt that the gist of it will turn out to be accurate. It fits a standard Trump pattern. The same pattern he used for his Stop the Steal scam.

I hope you didn’t throw your money at any of these scams. The object of the exercise for trump is to con you and pocket the money.

He bellows about audits, but he’s not about to put any money where his mouth is. He never was.
Without the audits, he has virtually no chance to show he won. If after all this time, after seeing half his net worth drop since he took office, he is just looking for a few million to pocket? Right.
 
Nope. You said they were awesome - but they aren't.

Well, the Post brings home Pulitzer Prizes on a fairly regular basis. Their two lead reporters on the Trump regime tended to be highly accurate, all the way through. Indeed, no one is actually trying to refute any of the stories in their latest book. Notwithstanding trump’s clownish denial, which is worthless.

I’ve read the Post since the 1970’s. It’s one of the three papers in this country whose reporting most closely resembles the events as they happened and as history winds up recording. The other two are the Times and the Wall Street Journal.

You’ll never be able to say that about Conservative Treehouse or the Epoch Times, or Q, or any of the garbage being peddled on the right wing social media safe spaces..

Oh, and you and I both know that the story is going to turn out to largely accurate. Don’t even bother to deny it.

We’ll know pretty soon, too.
 
Without the audits, he has virtually no chance to show he won. If after all this time, after seeing half his net worth drop since he took office, he is just looking for a few million to pocket? Right.

What does that have to do with probability that Trump pretended to raise money off folks like you, and pocket it?

Trump isn’t going to spend one dime of that money on audits. He won’t even lift a finger to bail out Cyber Ninjas when the bill comes due either.

He never intended to from the start. He’ll pocket it, just as he pocketed the Stop the Steal money, the Inaugral Commitee money, the Trump U money, and a lot fo the MAGA money.

You’ve yet to figure out what most of the rest of us have known for years.

That your failed fool’s gold wannabe fuhrer is really just a cheap wannabe wise guy who inherited his daddy’s money.

As for your claim about his net worth. Nobody believes it except you trump dead enders.

When Trump rode the esculator and claimed he was worth $10 billion (actually the figure changed at every rally, just like the number of Communists in Joe McCarthy’s rants), Wall Street and the commercial real estate industry laughed out loud. Few thought his net worth was even a billion.

But Mr “borrowed a million made a billion” loves to play the victim, and his disciples love to play along. So, he makes claims like the one you’re repeating so you can feel sorry for him, and rant about how the “deep state” or some other anonymous imaginary force plots against him.

Never mind the long history of mismanagement, cronyism, bad faith dealing and lack of real vision or leadership in both the TRump Organization and in his brief and desultory regime.
 
Last edited:
lol. You are trying WAY too hard to defend Wapo here.

My issue is with WaPo and it's lack of journalistic standards. This story is a great example - anonymous 'sources' that could be anyone, and a bunch of vague innuendo. The issue isn't 'facts' in the story, but the lack of them.
The story just says that Trump isn't spending the money people donate for the stated purpose that they donated it. That's not vague,, nor is it atypical of Trump. It is, in fact, consistent with his history as we know from what happened with the Trump Foundation. Anonymous sources have been leaking accurate information throughout Trump's presidency. In fact they have been considerable more accurate than Trump as a source of reliable information.
 
Without the audits, he has virtually no chance to show he won. If after all this time, after seeing half his net worth drop since he took office, he is just looking for a few million to pocket? Right.

If you think he did win, then you don't care about the evidence, to begin with.
 
lol. Overreacting? I'm just commenting.

And please, where did I 'excuse Trump'? If you want to be critical of Trump - by all means, do so. If we're going to discuss it here, on the breaking news forum, it should be news - not rumors and innuendo.
Actually, it's old news. We all know that Trump runs cons. It's not really news that he continues to do so. This is a "dog bites man" story. :rolleyes:
 
Deuce said:
Name one person who has criticized Trump in a significant way whom you accept as reliable.
lol. Sorry. You tried, and failed. Take care.

Deuce is right, and dcesports failed yet again. Trying to imitate Rush's fale mirror reporting that his opponents are doing what he is doing works no more dcsports than it did for Rush
It works for the stooges, though. There are a lot of them and their votes aren't being suppressed. Republicans are determined to impose an Idiocracy on us.
 
The story just says that Trump isn't spending the money people donate for the stated purpose that they donated it. That's not vague,, nor is it atypical of Trump. It is, in fact, consistent with his history as we know from what happened with the Trump Foundation. Anonymous sources have been leaking accurate information throughout Trump's presidency. In fact they have been considerable more accurate than Trump as a source of reliable information.
That's pretty vague.
 
How so? Be specific.
At this point, you - and definitely bearpoker - are just being argumentative. 'Trump hasn't spent much of the money for this PAC' is about as vague as you can get.
 
At this point, you - and definitely bearpoker - are just being argumentative. 'Trump hasn't spent much of the money for this PAC' is about as vague as you can get.

Can you tell us what "audits" Trump's PAC has helped fund and the amount? If so, please post a link.
 
At this point, you - and definitely bearpoker - are just being argumentative. 'Trump hasn't spent much of the money for this PAC' is about as vague as you can get.
Ah. I love the way you are actually missing the point of what the OP says. It said 'the pac is not spending the money in a manner for which it advertised it would be used for'. Why are you building such a straw man?
 
Ah. I love the way you are actually missing the point of what the OP says. It said 'the pac is not spending the money in a manner for which it advertised it would be used for'. Why are you building such a straw man?
Throwing out terms like 'building a strawman' and 'missing the point' aren't helping you make a case. You are missing the point.
 
Can you tell us what "audits" Trump's PAC has helped fund and the amount? If so, please post a link.
I can't. That would have been a good question for WaPo to answer though.
 
I can't. That would have been a good question for WaPo to answer though.

I suspect the PAC would not provide the information unless ordered by the Courts.

In AZ still waiting for Cyber Ninjas to report its funding sources as ordered by the Courts.
 
Throwing out terms like 'building a strawman' and 'missing the point' aren't helping you make a case. You are missing the point.
The 'I know you are but what am I' method of argumentation is not very effective.

The question is 'why are you misrepresenting the op?' It specifically said 'the money is not being spent on the issue for which it said it was being raised for'. How is that vague? HOw is that missing a point?
 
I can't. That would have been a good question for WaPo to answer though.
You're not in the least bit bothered that the money you've given to Donald Trump, he spent on wig maintenance, Big Macs and spray tans?
 
I suspect the PAC would not provide the information unless ordered by the Courts.

In AZ still waiting for Cyber Ninjas to report its funding sources as ordered by the Courts.
The PAC will release it's report by July 31 - next week. That would have been more useful for a story.
 
You're not in the least bit bothered that the money you've given to Donald Trump, he spent on wig maintenance, Big Macs and spray tans?
I haven't given him any money.

Note that the story isn't even saying there was any misuse of the funds - only implying it.
 
The 'I know you are but what am I' method of argumentation is not very effective.
I agree. It's a favorite tactic of the left.

The question is 'why are you misrepresenting the op?' It specifically said 'the money is not being spent on the issue for which it said it was being raised for'. How is that vague? HOw is that missing a point?
I didn't misrepresent it. Read again.
 
Back
Top Bottom