A slightly more tactful way of claiming mental superiority, but your are still voting for the guys doing the real fleecing.Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
|
|
|
|
|
A slightly more tactful way of claiming mental superiority, but your are still voting for the guys doing the real fleecing.
Ah, Don. I sincerely appreciate your patriotism. And it goes without saying that you should spend your money however you want (I mean, look, if y'all knew what I spent at Sonic each month - it's just that it's right by my house and it's always happy hour if you use the app. . .)
But, I really do hate it that you're throwing your money away like this. I mean, look at what it would take for them to "win" the election here. It's just not plausible. If the goal is to save America by giving Trump's team money so they can go win these court cases and eventually change the election results, I really think there is no chance of that happening.
If the goal is just that you want to give to the overall cause of election security and closing every loophole and triple-checking every vote or something, well - I think you might be better off donating to your local election board (which you might already be doing, but I'm just saying the money would likely have more impact on preventing error/fraud at that level if it's not being used in frivolous lawsuits or to pay off campaign debt).
And I know the tax return stuff was controversial, and I'm not sure what the Trump supporter party line take ended up being on that stuff (and frankly never really cared either way), but think of it this way - if he's really the genius businessman millionaire he says he is, then he can afford his own lawsuits. And if he's bankrupt or the money is all tied up in assets or property or whatever, then wouldn't that make you a little suspicious about giving him your money?
I really hope that Rudy recovers quickly with no lingering problems. But I also really don't think he should be taking your money. Have you seen what he's supposedly charging? Does that amount line up with the results he's been getting?
And, no - I did not take a class about communism at Tech.
I don't think that, but look at the results. What is Don's money getting him? What has it got him so far? Even if you think lawsuit after lawsuit has been dismissed because lizard people are mind-controlling all the local and state election officials and all the judges who have been ruling - regardless of the reason (and I've been pretty clear on what I think the reason is) they aren't winning. They're losing the cases.
So even without looking at the merits (which I think should be important), from a strictly results standpoint this has not been a good investment (at best) or (more likely) is a grift. Who is gaining from this stuff? Who is going home at the end of the day with the donated money? Who comes out ahead no matter what is decided? Are they going to refund the money? Or will they pocket the money, continue to make outrageous claims and ease right into media deals?
I could maybe see that Trump himself really buys this stuff. But his legal team (and so many Republicans that are scared to say so out loud because they don't want to be seen as crossing his purposes) are doing this cynically. They're ripping people off (and setting them up to continue to get ripped off).
Poor conservative small minded thinkers...if they could only grasp the Trump hate like all the mentally superior RINOs and Socialist Democrats.
I don't mind giving money to a good cause. Too bad you didn't get to take the Americanism vs communism course. Your post reveal that you have no idea what is going on. Go to youtube and search Tucker Carlson Tonight , 12/7/20. The first part of it is a video of a Chinese communist making a speech about how the Chinese communist are going to manipulate Biden. He also talks about how easy they were able to steal intellectual property from the US before Trump became president. They are really happy that Biden won the election.
Matthew 5:22
Do you think the return on this investment is going to be positive?
If a few more people would just donate to the cause they might win?
Do you think Rudy is working pro bono?
Do you think they'll refund the money when they lose?
Do you think Trump "needs" this money?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Why are you bothered by others giving their own money to what they believe in? Did you take up arms when you read about self proclaimed do gooders giving to idiotic causes like BLM and Antifa?
Excellent post.
In their egocentric universe, no viewpoint can be accepted unless it agrees with theirs. Your cause is never worth fighting for. They know all, see all, understand all, and have to save you from yourself.
Me....I'm too cynical to give money to either side, but can understand why someone would want to do so. I appreciate there are folks out there that are willing to do this kind of stuff. The fact that it is so horrible to some makes me reconsider my decision to not make a donation.
The word "grifter" must be trending on the mainstream media and liberal sites. It seems to have become the word of the day for the sheep that follow such things (much like "beginning of the end" and "collusion" were in the recent past.) This parroting must be a sign of mental superiority.
They heard the ladies on “the view” Saying grifter and went with it…
I don't know anybody who gave any money to BLM and I'm pretty sure it's impossible to send it to Antifa. Regardless, I'm not bothered when folks who have plenty of money spend it on things they care about. Are you not troubled when people scare folks on fixed incomes into giving them money that has not possibility of achieving the result that's pitched to the victim?
The whole thing feels a lot like a viatical settlement pitch.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
It's been around a while, just never quite so obvious as it is right now. When Trump spends 77 cents to earn a dollar, where do you think that 77 cents goes? Usually, it goes to grifters.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I said in my post that it goes without saying that he can spend his money however he wants (and that certainly he wouldn't agree with how I spend every dollar of mine).
It's fine if he wants to donate to this cause. Really. As you say, it's not my money. Same for liberal causes (or even conservative causes I do agree with). Sure. Obviously. Fine.
But it's (part) of the subject of the greater conversation here. I am convinced that many if not all of the people getting this money are making the claims that they're making, not because they believe them but because they'll profit off of this idea. And the most direct way that this is happening is the donations. I've made my case for my view, I don't really expect Don or anyone else to be convinced by my reasoning (although I stand by it).
Do you see any flaws in the substance of what I've claimed other than "it's his money, none of your business?" Because I'll concede that point happily. It's only my business to the extent that it relates to the topic at hand. Naturally.
But as to my point(s)? Crickets so far. . .
Do you think that "my view must be right" viewpoint is unique to those skeptical of Trump winning the election? I mean, that's a fairly ironic point to make in the context of this larger discussion (including the multiple other threads about the "stolen election"). The NYT can't be right because they're liberal. Same for NPR. And Reuters? And the AP? And National Review? And Fox News (if they say something Trump disagrees with)? And The Dispatch?
But hey, this one outlier source that isn't "mainstream" because it only speaks the truth, that's the place to get your election coverage? You can trust them. . .because. . . they say what I was hoping for?
I can totally understand why someone would donate to a political cause or campaign (although like you, I am extremely unlikely to ever do so). That I get. If you wanted Trump to win and gave to his election campaign over the summer, I totally understand that (same for Biden or the Libertarian Party or Green Party). I even understand why you'd do so against all odds of a win (like the Libertarian or Green Party). I get that.
But giving to an effort like this that (seems to me) is clearly in bad faith, that I'm confused about. I honestly have a hard time getting why you'd throw your money away like this (again, while freely acknowledging that I do plenty that could be considered "throwing my money away"). I guess the key is "clearly in bad faith" and whether you think they can win. But that's the question I am asking. Are people donating because they truly believe that things will change and the result of their donation will be that Trump will remain as president? And if so, why do they think that? I suspect it would probably be based on the media you trust (vs the media/data I trust) but I guess we'll see eventually, right? If someone is giving money without much expectation of a change, then I'm just curious as to why. I mean, again - I could see that it's meant to bring about some incremental good like those that give money to third party candidates or something. But this is pretty specific for that. And the places the money is going maybe aren't the best ways to improve election security long-term. And if you just want to donate after the fact to offset Trump campaign costs for some reason, couldn't you still do that directly?
I guess I'm legitimately curious about the motivations here (I suspect most actually believe their donations will make an impact, do you think that's likely?).
As for "grift," it's the most accurate word for what I think is happening. I chose it (and have been using it a lot) because I think that's the name for the action taking place. It's small-scale swindling (small-scale on a case-by-case basis, obviously much larger when considered altogether).
If you're seeing that word elsewhere it's certainly possible probably even likely that it is trending because it's being used to describe what seems to be happening. I don't recall hearing it or reading it anywhere, but I very well could have. I don't think I really consume all that much "mainstream" or "liberal" media, but you know - it's possible that I heard it somewhere, considered it, and felt that it applies (as opposed to finding just the right word in a thesaurus). To be honest, I think it'd almost serve as a synonym for much of government (left or right). If there was some sort of Freudian slip where you said "grifter" instead of "senator" I probably wouldn't correct you (because I'm not sure you'd need correcting in 90/100 cases).
Now you're hitting below the belt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote