• 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 Rasies More Donations Than All Democratic Rivals Combined

code1211 said:
So your purchasing power has decreased by 40% in a few years while mine has increased by about 3% over the same period.

I'll ask you again to compare the slumping economy in Britain to the Trump economy.

Maybe Biden can help you all when he negotiates deals with Margaret Thatcher...
Click to expand...

Margaret Thatcher died in 2013, so that might prove tricky.
 
code1211 said:
What I agree with is that something beats nothing every time.

"Wages barely keeping pace with inflation" is French for "Wages are rising faster than inflation".

We're back to understanding language again.

As an aside, the British pound has "slumped" against the Dollar. If your income is not UP by about 40%, your purchasing power in Britain is way, way down vs 2014.

Summer 2014, your Pound was worth $1.70. Now it's worth $1.21. That's down half a buck vaporized per pound in only a few years. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Might be time to turn your incisive critique to the problems suffered on your own shores.
Click to expand...

If you want to start a thread on Britain's economy be my guest. However this is about the US so do try not to deflect, there's a good chap.
 
Condor060 said:
We know Obama didn't as he said for us to get used to 2% growth and the only way Trump will find new jobs was to wave a magic wand. Thank God we didn't trend from Obamas economy.
Click to expand...

You mean the economy Obama rescued from the disaster that was Bush's global recession? Trump inherited a nice gift from Obama; a steadily growing economy.
 
code1211 said:
Do any facts ever penetrate you shield of blind, hate filled ideologies?
Click to expand...

If facts were important to you folks you would never have continued to support him after his oligarch tax bill
 
Perotista said:
The difference was I didn't have a horse in that race. I started off backing Jim Webb. But he didn't campaign. Then it was John Kasich for a spell until New Hampshire, then I just didn't give an owls hoot.
Click to expand...

I was voting against Hillary more than for Trump.
 
snakestretcher said:
You mean the economy Obama rescued from the disaster that was Bush's global recession? Trump inherited a nice gift from Obama; a steadily growing economy.
Click to expand...

What he inherited was 1.8 GDP, 4.8 unemployment, a 10 trillion dollar doubled national debt, 17,000 stock market, and a stagnated economy.

The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016:
For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%.

GDP growth decelerated in each of the last three quarters of 2016.

That same month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast growth this year would be just 1.9%.

There were other signs of stagnation as well. Stocks had flatlined in 2016, with major indexes down. Real median household income dropped that year, according to Sentier Research.

Growth had been so worrisomely slow throughout Obama's two terms in office that journalists started warning about "secular stagnation." They said the country was in a period of long, sustained, slow growth resulting from slow population and productivity growth.

Inherited a nice gift from Obama? Where did you ever come up with that idea?
 
Condor060 said:
I was voting against Hillary more than for Trump.
Click to expand...

I call 2016 the anti election. More votes were cast against a candidate than for a candidate. It was more of an election of I don't want candidate A to become the next the president. But I don't want candidate B to become the next president more than candidate A. So quite a lot of people even though they didn't want neither major party candidate, choose one over the other. That's our two party system at work.

I think we can see how much both candidates were disliked by their favorable/unfavorable ratings. Hillary 38/56% favorable/unfavorable, Trump 36/60% favorable/unfavorable nationwide. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Those major party candidates set the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable's ever. Here's the complete list.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
 
Perotista said:
I call 2016 the anti election. More votes were cast against a candidate than for a candidate. It was more of an election of I don't want candidate A to become the next the president. But I don't want candidate B to become the next president more than candidate A. So quite a lot of people even though they didn't want neither major party candidate, choose one over the other. That's our two party system at work.

I think we can see how much both candidates were disliked by their favorable/unfavorable ratings. Hillary 38/56% favorable/unfavorable, Trump 36/60% favorable/unfavorable nationwide. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Those major party candidates set the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable's ever. Here's the complete list.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
Click to expand...

Whats even crazier, Reagan won 525 (out of 538) electoral votes. Man have times changed. Notice the diminishing approval ratings and the separations of the parties as the years move on.
 
Condor060 said:
What he inherited was 1.8 GDP, 4.8 unemployment, a 10 trillion dollar doubled national debt, 17,000 stock market, and a stagnated economy.

The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016:
For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%.

GDP growth decelerated in each of the last three quarters of 2016.

That same month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast growth this year would be just 1.9%.

There were other signs of stagnation as well. Stocks had flatlined in 2016, with major indexes down. Real median household income dropped that year, according to Sentier Research.

Growth had been so worrisomely slow throughout Obama's two terms in office that journalists started warning about "secular stagnation." They said the country was in a period of long, sustained, slow growth resulting from slow population and productivity growth.

Inherited a nice gift from Obama? Where did you ever come up with that idea?
Click to expand...

The economy grew from the most severe recession since the 1932 crash and continued to grow. Argue with that.
 
Condor060 said:
Trump and his PACs have raised over $233 million with 61% of that money from small donations under $200. That is up from Obama's 43% in 2012 and Joe Bidens current 38% and Kamala Harris 41%.

Since the time that all 20 Democratic candidates started fundraising in 2019, all 20 Democrats have only pulled in $209 million COMBINED.

The American people are demanding a secure border, demanding an end to the exploitative and unfair trade policies, demanding an end to an unresponsive swamp culture, against taxing American's to provide free healthcare to Illegals, while expanding the base to "today's blue-collar and working Americans.
Click to expand...

Look at you... all proud and bragging about how Donald lied to you again about self funding his own campaign.

*edit... also: why no link condor?
 
Condor060 said:
Whats even crazier, Reagan won 525 (out of 538) electoral votes. Man have times changed. Notice the diminishing approval ratings and the separations of the parties as the years move on.
Click to expand...

Reagan does seem to be some sort of dividing line. Since him we have become much more partisan and polarized.
 
Rexedgar said:
I was with you until the bolded. Do you not find it troubling that money is the first metric discussed when speaking to a candidate’s electability?
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact that money is the #1 reason that rich people want to fund Trump's campaign given that if he is not re-elected they stand to lose much more than what they send to Trump. Trump is the only person that guarantees them more riches for the next 4 years.

If I was rich, selfish and greedy, I would even stand in line to contribute to Trump's campaign.
 
chuckiechan said:
The reason small donations are important is the voters are invested in the candidate when they put their money down.



Money is the mothers milk of politics.
Click to expand...

The small donors are not something to get excited about because it is known that 35% of all Americans have joined the Trump cult and that is the minimum initiation fee.

This is what is most noticeable:

That said, the Trump re-election effort has no shortage of wealthy donors. Twelve people gave the maximum allowed combined donation of $360,000 to the different Trump 2020 campaign committees.
Click to expand...

The rich helping to get richer.
 
Condor060 said:
What he inherited was 1.8 GDP, 4.8 unemployment, a 10 trillion dollar doubled national debt, 17,000 stock market, and a stagnated economy.

The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016:
For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%.

GDP growth decelerated in each of the last three quarters of 2016.

That same month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast growth this year would be just 1.9%.

There were other signs of stagnation as well. Stocks had flatlined in 2016, with major indexes down. Real median household income dropped that year, according to Sentier Research.

Growth had been so worrisomely slow throughout Obama's two terms in office that journalists started warning about "secular stagnation." They said the country was in a period of long, sustained, slow growth resulting from slow population and productivity growth.

Inherited a nice gift from Obama? Where did you ever come up with that idea?
Click to expand...

And lost effective freedom of the seas in the South China Sea. Obama allowed China to build and militarize islands without so much of a limp wristed challenge. He accepted their lies so he wouldn’t have to deal with them.

And presided over the growth of the only growth industry of his presidency - dollar stores!

Obama was the worst president ever!
 
trixare4kids said:
The amount of money that is coming in is phenomenal and is indicative of Trump's popularity and probability for reelection.
Never trust the polls... Heck, I did that in 2016, and never again will I put any faith in them.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion on the fact that a large portion of the contributions is going to Trump himself and not to the party to help re-elect Republicans in general for 2020 and also a large portion is going to the lawyers that are defending him in court?

So far, however, a huge proportion of their cash isn’t going directly to reelect Trump but to defend those who helped get him elected in the first place. In the most recent quarter, about one-fourth of the cash that’s been spent — about $4 million — has gone to pay off legal fees almost certainly related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian campaign interference, according to the Center for Public Integrity. (The New York Times says most of the money has gone to Jones Day, which is handling Mueller’s Russia probe.)

More specifically, that money has gone to the law firms of Jones Day, Williams & Jensen, Liebowitz Law Firm, Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, Larocca Hornik Rosen Greenberg & Blaha, and the Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, according to CPI. Close to $100,000 from the small-donor army was spent on businesses with Trump’s name — including at the Trump International Hotel and Trump restaurants — in the last quarter, CPI said.

Does Trump care about the GOP?

The other reason Trump is free to break with precedent, Biersack suggests, is that other presidents focused more on helping other candidates from their party.

“When you’re the president, the money just comes to you. But you don’t want to get in the way of the national party; you don’t want to inhibit the fundraising ability of congressional campaigns — there are lots of other needs for those funds,” Biersack says. “You want to raise money for them; you don’t want to raise money for yourself if you don’t need it yet.”

Trump, the consummate outsider who didn’t become a Republican until right before he ran for president, is different. He is fundraising through a joint fundraising committee — which allows the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee to circumvent campaign finance laws with huge checks — but much of that money still goes to the president.

And it appears, for now, that Trump’s fundraising apparatus is focusing on helping the president himself. Jane Calderwood, who served for close to a decade as chief of staff for former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), said Republicans in Congress will be furious if Trump continues to fundraise for himself without redirecting his efforts to help them.

“They’re counting on him — it’s your party, you’re the leader, and fundraising for the rest of it is normally part of your gig,” Calderwood said February. “Even Obama in his last term was raising money like a fiend for House and Senate Democrats. If [Trump] raises a bunch of money for himself and doesn’t give them any, they’re going to be beside themselves.”
Click to expand...
 
Perotista said:
I call 2016 the anti election. More votes were cast against a candidate than for a candidate. It was more of an election of I don't want candidate A to become the next the president. But I don't want candidate B to become the next president more than candidate A. So quite a lot of people even though they didn't want neither major party candidate, choose one over the other. That's our two party system at work.

I think we can see how much both candidates were disliked by their favorable/unfavorable ratings. Hillary 38/56% favorable/unfavorable, Trump 36/60% favorable/unfavorable nationwide. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Those major party candidates set the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable's ever. Here's the complete list.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
Click to expand...

Prez Eisenhower is #1 because he also gave the boot to the illegals.

How President Eisenhower Sent 3 Million Illegals Packing
 
chuckiechan said:
The reason small donations are important is the voters are invested in the candidate when they put their money down.



Money is the mothers milk of politics.
Click to expand...

By the way, there are 157 million registered voters and it is estimated that at least 25% are Republicans that support Trump, meaning approximated 40 million. If each of them sends $200, it would mean that Trump would receive about $8 billion. He is falling way short of that. How come? each Trump cult member should be required to contribute or be thrown out of the cult.
 
Perotista said:
Reagan does seem to be some sort of dividing line. Since him we have become much more partisan and polarized.
Click to expand...

Mid 90's Fox News propaganda comes on line and does their magic and all the sudden there is news and alternative news telling you news is fake and to only trust them.
 
poweRob said:
Mid 90's Fox News propaganda comes on line and does their magic and all the sudden there is news and alternative news telling you news is fake and to only trust them.
Click to expand...

I think all three cable news networks these days are nothing more than propaganda machines. What Gallup sees is distrust in all mass media.

Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

That is probably because that instead of just reporting on our political battles, the media has taken sides in our political battles.
 
snakestretcher said:
The economy grew from the most severe recession since the 1932 crash and continued to grow. Argue with that.
Click to expand...

There isn't an argument to make. The numbers are the numbers and no amount of blustering about Obama is going to change the historical record.
 
Helix said:
Stopped reading at "tax confiscation."
Click to expand...

What word is more accurate that may avoid bruising your delicate sensibilities?

Confiscation | Definition of Confiscation at Dictionary.com
<snip>
[h=1]confiscate[/h]
[ verb kon-fuh-skeyt; adjective kuh n-fis-kit ]SHOW IPA


WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR confiscate ON THESAURUS.COM

[h=3]verb (used with object), con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing.[/h]to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily:The border guards confiscated our movie cameras.

[h=3]adjective[/h]seized or appropriated, as for public use.

<snip>
 
snakestretcher said:
Margaret Thatcher died in 2013, so that might prove tricky.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Biden. His world view is a tad dated. OUTdated is probably more accurate. I thought you might be familiar with this embarrassing comment from this embarrassing candidate.

He is one of the the many old white men seeking the Democrat Socialist nomination that has passed his "sell by" date.

He was never a Churchillian orator nor was he an MLK visionary, but his current condition is far below his disappointing peak. Such is life.

Too gaffe-prone to be president? Biden's blunders prompt fresh scrutiny | US news | The Guardian
<snip>
He invoked Margaret Thatcher in comments intended to be about former British prime minister Theresa May, and stumbled over a key stump speech line, telling Iowans: “We choose truth over facts” (as opposed to “truth over lies”).
<snip>
 
code1211 said:
What word is more accurate that may avoid bruising your delicate sensibilities?

Confiscation | Definition of Confiscation at Dictionary.com
<snip>
[h=1]confiscate[/h]
[ verb kon-fuh-skeyt; adjective kuh n-fis-kit ]SHOW IPA


WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR confiscate ON THESAURUS.COM

[h=3]verb (used with object), con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing.[/h]to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily:The border guards confiscated our movie cameras.

[h=3]adjective[/h]seized or appropriated, as for public use.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Stopped reading at "What."
 
code1211 said:
Tell that to Biden. His world view is a tad dated. OUTdated is probably more accurate. I thought you might be familiar with this embarrassing comment from this embarrassing candidate.

He is one of the the many old white men seeking the Democrat Socialist nomination that has passed his "sell by" date.

He was never a Churchillian orator nor was he an MLK visionary, but his current condition is far below his disappointing peak. Such is life.

Too gaffe-prone to be president? Biden's blunders prompt fresh scrutiny | US news | The Guardian
<snip>
He invoked Margaret Thatcher in comments intended to be about former British prime minister Theresa May, and stumbled over a key stump speech line, telling Iowans: “We choose truth over facts” (as opposed to “truth over lies”).
<snip>
Click to expand...

Not much different, then, from "alternative facts" as far as gaffes are concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom