Big deal!!
People that like Graham send him donations. Great idea. Go Graham!!
It is important to note, as Trump did Thursday night, that he also has significant assets. Forbes values them at $3.66 billion, enough to make his net worth an estimated $2.5 billion. He is not broke, despite what many critics claim.
So $3.7B in assets against $1.2B in debt according to the article. So 0.3 debt/assets. Sounds like he’s got a whole lot less in mortgages than he’s might, given a lot of commercial real estate can usually get 60-70% borrowed as a % of the asset value.
“But clearly he’s a failure, almost broke, and beholden to Russia for refinancing his high debts” —MSM
Wait, I thought FOX doesn’t count as MSM according to this thread?
MSM is he’s a billionaire and not paying income taxes due to loopholes, including the massive new carveouts he added in the recent Tax Cuts for Billionaires that was passed? And FOX is the one “he’s just claiming against losses like normal people can, nothing to see here”?
Which one is it? He’s cheating on taxes or he’s a business failure?
I know, right? Somehow both.
Earlier I said that Biden is spending the next few days in the basement studying up for the debate.
But Trump right now, is on the battle field speaking in Arizona. His thought about Biden in the basement is, he is working with his attorney. (why, what to say about himself & Hunter in the debate)
Seems I didn’t click the right button to reply, so I’m gonna tag you @glitch99 . The entire conversation stemmed from what you wrote:
So even though the following is correct:
because it seems that donations were made directly by individuals to the campaign, not by PACs, the Citizens United ruling does not apply. But the spirit of the Citizens United decision in that “money is speech” does apply. Whether that money comes from direct individual contributions to the campaign and then used by the campaign to buy ads, or it comes from PACs or superpacs to buy ads directly is irrelevant – either way the “fundraising disparity bears no reflection on the state, it’s the definition of outsiders trying to buy an election” (your words).
Besides, there was a series on superpacs done by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert a few years ago, where they created a real superPAC, then flaunted multiple times how the “no coordination” part of the campaign finance law can be and had been easily thwarted without breaking the law. I only write this to show that in practice there’s no difference in how the money is raised – it bears no reflection on the state and can come from anywhere.
So yes, you are right, Citizens United has nothing to do with this. But its defenders claimed that “money is speech” and are now crying about the free speech money.
They’re pricing in the possibility of a Biden victory and Democratic Senate. And not bacause of a robust economy, but the likelihood of massive “stimulus”.
They’re betting the bailouts will flow wide open, and don’t want to miss the chance to buy in.
1 Like
Please show us where he suggested any number whatsoever…
1 Like
Did I say it was illegal? The fact remains that it is outsiders trying to buy a Senate seat. Being legal doesn’t change that characterization.
And more importantly, that massive fundraising advantage doesn’t reflect on the people of SC who will be casting the votes. There remains a good chance he will win reelection despite the massive financial disadvantage.
When asked about it during the town hall, he said: “$400 million dollars compared to the assets that I have …” following up with “it’s a tiny percentage of my net worth”. He didn’t explicitly confirm or deny, but he did suggest that as a number, and all of his avoidance certainly does not sound like a “no”.
Town hall video, at 38:50 https://youtu.be/rjwWG6kJ6io?t=2330.
1 Like
You did not, but neither did I.
The effects of Citizens United also does not reflect on the people of <insert any district, state, or even country> who will be casting the votes. We are merely drawing a parallel between what is happening in SC with direct contributions and what has happened and is probably happening in other places with superPAC money – outsiders are trying to buy elections.
Come on now… are you really implying someone with a billion dollars net worth would have any idea what range their debt and assets are at any given time?
I know, right?
We all know that Trump is not a detail-oriented person, he’s all about the big picture. He is (1) a narcissist and (2) demonstrably obsessed with his net worth (see his legal fight with Forbes). That leads me to believe that his “net worth”, to him, is about as “big picture” and as important as it gets. It would, of course, require at least one step into the details of net worth to learn of total assets and total liabilities. Those could certainly be easily represented with pictures, so even he could digest that information. Alas, I have no evidence to suggest that he ever looked at such pictures.
Red sharpie and Black sharpie or Red sharpie and Green sharpie?
Does he like pie? Then a pie chart, obviously.
Otherwise maybe a bar chart, with each bar made up of stacked KFC buckets.
Great, now I’m hungry.
Does he like pie? Then a pie chart, obviously.
Otherwise maybe a bar chart, with each bar made up of stacked KFC buckets.
Great, now I’m hungry.
He only uses “hamburder” charts. You can’t buy round pies from the fastfood places he is willing to eat.