this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
420 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4570 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Donald Trump is trying to bring into politics a phenomenon that's taking off in college athletics: money for use of the former president's name, image and likeness in campaign ads.

In a letter this week, the Trump presidential campaign asked all down-ballot GOP campaigns for at least a 5% cut of the money raised from advertising that features the party's 2024 presumptive White House nominee.

"We ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC," said the April 15 letter signed by campaign co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I understand the gist of the victory fund thing.

My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing? Even if we posit without evidence that Biden is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing with it that Hillary did.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing?

...

Because trump is just demanding a cut.

Biden's 2020 campaign are the ones that structured it so billionaires can give 625k, which is much larger than the normal 2.5k you can give to a candidate.

PACs get around it by not being allowed to "coordinate" with the campaign legally.

This allows the DNC to essentially be a PAC, except they can legally coordinate with Biden's campaign...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donors-can-now-give-620600-to-biden-and-dnc-expanding-democratic-big-money-fundraising/2020/05/16/d2bf51cc-978a-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

It's all there in one of the links you haven't read.

trump is doing a small time grift, Biden significantly expanded how much the wealthy can influence an election far and above citizens united. Which you just said was a problem...

So I don't understand how you don't see how what Biden is doing is worse.

If the problem is me explaining it, please read those articles and see if that helps. I'm not sure how else to put it that's simpler, and don't see the point of me going as in depth as those articles you won't read.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I understand perfectly well, you don't need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don't understand.

Trump is siphoning money that he didn't raise away from downballot candidates

Biden is raising money, then you're saying that he's probably not giving enough of it to downballot candidates (while admitting you have no idea whether that's actually happening; you're just assuming it because of what Hillary did)

Right? Do I have that summary correct?

If your main concern is that you're upset that all this stuff is legal in America, I fully agree. I think directing anger at the system that made it legal and try to make it illegal again sounds like a great idea. Since it's legal though, it seems weird to say that it's a huge problem that the better candidate in this election is doing it (to try to raise money and win the election).

I don't even understand how Biden's name came into this and why you're trying so hard to link this particular type of legalized corruption with his name, specifically under an unrelated story about Trump inventing a whole new type of kneecapping-downballot-candidates to do.

(I mean, I have a theory for why you're so eager to bring Biden's name into it and bring up shady things Hillary Clinton did 8 years ago; I'm just pointing out that it's an odd thing to be so eager to bring into discussion about this story.)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I understand perfectly well, you don’t need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don’t understand

You literally said:

My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing? Even if we posit without evidence that Biden is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing with it that Hillary did.

So I took that as meaning I needed to repeat what I already explained because you didn't understand...

You keep asking me things that are explained in the articles you're not reading.

If the problem is me, take me out of the equation and just read the articles man.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That comic is actually a really good illustration of how to use propagandistic framing (take a sensible thing and put it in the mouth of a character who's dislikeable) -- in this case, making it seem like "Sounds like you're talking bollocks about something I care about, can you justify what you said?" is a rude thing to ask.

(Edit: He edited the comment maybe? This is the comic which was part of the comment before he edited it)