this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
568 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2549 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers

Former President Donald Trump’s PACs have spent about $50 million in donor money on his legal bills last year, sources told The New York Times.

The “staggering sum” spent by Trump on his legal fees and investigation-related expenses is about the same amount his lone remaining GOP primary opponent Nikki Haley raised across all her committees last year, the Times’ Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher write. Federal Election Commission filings this week are expected to detail the full extent of Trump’s “enormous financial strain,” they added.

Trump, who has a penchant for relying on campaign donations to pay his lawyers if he actually pays them at all, has used his Save America PAC to cover his legal costs. When the PAC ran low on cash last year, Trump asked for an unusual refund of $60 million that had been transferred to the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. PAC. Trump has also been directing 10% of donations raised through Save America to a PAC that primarily pays his lawyers, according to the Times.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

How can anyone think Trump should get a second term? I realize, of course, that neither the interests of the people nor common sense are a factor in the States, but even the most unscrupulous businessmen should realize by now that Trump is not an option. I mean, someone who manages to squander even such an exorbitant inheritance without any significant returns can't be considered a smart businessman or any good for business. The only way I can explain the support for Trump is that many influential people backed the wrong horse and are now committed - just the way these people handle their share transactions. But hey, I am not a US-American and so I can't help but get the impression that you all have lost your minds (even for thinking that this is in any way acceptable). How such a ridiculous circus can be possible in a so-called constitutional state is simply beyond me.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Donald lowered their corporate taxes to nothing. They had three years of stock buybacks on the back of the strong economy Obama set up. Then in the pandemic, instead of being held accountable for raiding the coffers and needing to put money back in, they were given trillions more in handouts. And now they are recording record profits and blaming inflation on Biden.

The influential people make serious bank at the expense of the public every time a Repub gets power. Somehow the economy crashes, people lose their jobs and homes, but it is the wealthy receiving billions or trillions in handouts. So these influential people run propaganda networks to make sure low information voters can be tricked into voting for Repubs.

As for how it can happen, my opinion is because we have FPTP voting. If we had score voting, Donald never would have been selected. Dem voters and Independents all would have ranked every functioning adult higher than Donald.

Also the Electoral College means everyone's vote is valued less than a Wyoming vote. That violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment IMO. But Donald being able to run violates the letter of the 14th Amendment so what do I know.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I realize most that, but why risk the comfortable status quo? Perhaps it really is megalomania in the form of wanting to return to monarchy-like conditions in which the law not only pretends to apply to everyone, but is actually a law "by the grace of God". I can well imagine this, given everything that is apparently negotiable in America.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

That's the question we're all asking ourselves. Aren't the hoards big enough?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This is a case of the inmates running the asylum. The Republicans in power who know he's an idiot are stuck with him because he has such a large base of hateful assholes (whose votes they have been courting for decades) who think he's the second coming. Their votes are the only chance they have at winning, and they have only themselves to blame.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's clear, but I don't understand why there is a need to deviate from business as usual all of a sudden. It can't be in the interests of the rich and powerful to draw attention to how very wrong things have been going in the so called US democracy for decades. I think that's extremely dangerous - and if there's one thing big business wants to avoid at all costs, that's probably this.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's the natural progression of big business cozying up to conservatism since it's profitable to do so. As soon as Republicans starting allying with far-right groups, they were all in bed with fascists. Instead of risk losing profits short-term, they'll pretend that everything is fine until it's not possible to any more.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Yes, that's probably how it went. Fascism is, of course, a perspective that promises profit and power for such people - it worked excellently for the profiteers in Nazi Germany, nowadays also in Russia (in a slightly different disguise) and elsewhere. The only question that remains is whether the Americans will resist. Unfortunately, it doesn't really look that way to me at the moment. So perhaps the very unscrupulous have bet on the right horse after all. We'll have to wait and see.