a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
This isn't true.
It only survived 80 years of Christianity as state religion, though. Slightly less, even.
Dave
Staff member
Breitbart is taking over. Trump even gave an apology (of sorts) last night. Essentially, fuck the RNP, we're going all in with ultra-nationalism and the far right.
Probably to mitigate the amount of damage he could do as more of his shit gets unearthed.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/tee...ted-from-campaign-rally-for-having-dark-skin/
An Indian teenage Trump supporter was booted from a rally after being accused of being a known protester (being Brown). Kid says he's disillusioned and will now vote Johnson.
An Indian teenage Trump supporter was booted from a rally after being accused of being a known protester (being Brown). Kid says he's disillusioned and will now vote Johnson.
Interesting Idea: Ailes and Bannon joined up with Trump to lay the groundwork for a new conservative news network, not to win the election.
This would make sense: appealing to the base isn't going to win Trump the election because it's just driving away the moderates and undecided. But appealing to the base DOES get you a baked in audience, especially with FoxNews softening it's conservative stance in recent months to better appeal to advertisers... and it's not like Bannon hasn't made it clear that this was something he's been planning for ever since he took over BreitBart in 2012. The only thing keeping this from happening NOW is that Ailes is likely under a non-compete for awhile.
This would make sense: appealing to the base isn't going to win Trump the election because it's just driving away the moderates and undecided. But appealing to the base DOES get you a baked in audience, especially with FoxNews softening it's conservative stance in recent months to better appeal to advertisers... and it's not like Bannon hasn't made it clear that this was something he's been planning for ever since he took over BreitBart in 2012. The only thing keeping this from happening NOW is that Ailes is likely under a non-compete for awhile.
....they decided to settle it with a naked mudwrestling competition between the contestants.
Hillary would destroy him. There's no way he could get a good grip on a slippery foe with those tiny hobbit hands.....they decided to settle it with a naked mudwrestling competition between the contestants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9
Now that he's collecting donations to his campaign, he's quintupled the rent his campaign headquarters is paying in his own tower. What a fucking scumbag.
That cash goes right back into his own debt ridden pockets.
Now that he's collecting donations to his campaign, he's quintupled the rent his campaign headquarters is paying in his own tower. What a fucking scumbag.
That cash goes right back into his own debt ridden pockets.
FTFY.
That rent may still be cheap for the location, and it's not uncommon for lease terms to include balloon options - cheap for X months, then goes up to full price. This is attractive to startups and small businesses that believe they will ramp up quickly (or fail quickly), but still need some time to show they are able to do so before managing the bigger bill. Usually the final amount is larger than the regular amount to account for the early discount.
Again, not interested in defending him, but unfortunately I know a little more about business realestate than I'd like, and I've run across this type of lease arrangement more than once.
I don't know where the offices are and what the value of the realestate is, though. I guess I can check it out.
So current non-retail rental prices for fifth avenue downtown are $150-$200 per square foot (retail? $1,600 per square foot. Yikes). For those not familiar with commercial realestate pricing this rate is per year. So a 3,000 square foot space would be $450,000 to $600,000 per year, or $37,500 to $50,000 per month. Trump had, months ago, only 70 paid employees, and if you pack employees into a space like sardines you need at least 125 square feet per employee (that includes hallways, restrooms, bathrooms, entryways, conference rooms, etc). So that tiny space would be tightly packed, probably not even enough room for cubicles nevermind offices. Most places suggest 200 square feet per employee is a better estimate. Let's assume that he's packing them in like sardines, though, and everyone barely gets elbow room. That's 9,000 square feet, so between $112,500 and $150,000 per month.
The office isn't "finished" but usually when a company rents a space they pay for the buildout - walls, lighting, wiring, etc. Cheap companies and startups use what's left over from the previous tenant.
I suspect the space is way larger than 9,000 square feet.
At any rate, it doesn't sound like an unusual or particularly evil situation, but I can certainly understand it's easy to believe it is and portray it that way.
This doesn't speak towards a well-oiled and well-funded political machine, though. Clinton is clearly way out ahead in terms of organization. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438
Again, not interested in defending him, but unfortunately I know a little more about business realestate than I'd like, and I've run across this type of lease arrangement more than once.
I don't know where the offices are and what the value of the realestate is, though. I guess I can check it out.
So current non-retail rental prices for fifth avenue downtown are $150-$200 per square foot (retail? $1,600 per square foot. Yikes). For those not familiar with commercial realestate pricing this rate is per year. So a 3,000 square foot space would be $450,000 to $600,000 per year, or $37,500 to $50,000 per month. Trump had, months ago, only 70 paid employees, and if you pack employees into a space like sardines you need at least 125 square feet per employee (that includes hallways, restrooms, bathrooms, entryways, conference rooms, etc). So that tiny space would be tightly packed, probably not even enough room for cubicles nevermind offices. Most places suggest 200 square feet per employee is a better estimate. Let's assume that he's packing them in like sardines, though, and everyone barely gets elbow room. That's 9,000 square feet, so between $112,500 and $150,000 per month.
The office isn't "finished" but usually when a company rents a space they pay for the buildout - walls, lighting, wiring, etc. Cheap companies and startups use what's left over from the previous tenant.
I suspect the space is way larger than 9,000 square feet.
At any rate, it doesn't sound like an unusual or particularly evil situation, but I can certainly understand it's easy to believe it is and portray it that way.
This doesn't speak towards a well-oiled and well-funded political machine, though. Clinton is clearly way out ahead in terms of organization. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438
GasBandit
Staff member
You didn't even read his post, did you.
I'm not saying it's not shady to pay yourself rent, but "discount rent for the first x months" is a thing.
He could have also rented it out for a dollar a year, and that way people could now masturbate about a 170,000,000% increase. He was losing income by renting it below market price, so (do the fungibility dance) there isn't much difference (except probably tax efficiency, I'm guessing) between renting it for cheaper to himself and paying himself more.
Of all the things to attack him on, this strikes me as... Meh?
That's over 1000x my rate. Granted It's not prime real estate in the Raleigh area, but wow.
I've seen people here loving to go on about this like it's something for Clinton to be proud of, but all I can do is look at the disproportionate gap in the polls and feel like there's a lot of money being wasted.
The campaign machines built to elect President Obama in 2008 and 2012 were key to his win both times. The margin between him and McCain was under 10 million popular votes, about 8%, and Romney reduce that to 4% or just over 4 million votes in 2012.
4% is almost a margin of error.
So the campaign machine is vitally important, and honestly that could again make the difference this year. She would be happy to throw away hundreds of millions more of donor's money if it means getting the win. It's fascinating to read about the data scientists that worked President Obama's campaigns.
Donald ramping up on the media machine seems to be all about getting the media to talk more and more about him and his stories/platform/etc.
I think it's going to be a very interesting lead up into the election because they are approaching it from very different angles. Donald is building up media attention (and like a car wreck they can't seem to look away), while Hillary is travelling the same well-worn road of her predecessor - a huge volunteer organization driven by humongous databases and scientists analyzing every poll movement and tweaking every phone/internet/media campaign to get just enough of a bump in a given market.
Interesting because Romney tried to beat Obama at his own game, but reading the behinds the scenes stuff in the campaign they were having pretty significant issues with the technology and the people. President Obama simply did better - but wow it was close. 1.8% less popular vote and Obama wouldn't have gotten above 50%.
So will Trump breaking the mold make a difference, trying to win the race with his own media blitz, or will Hillary laugh all the way to the whitehouse because today you simply can't take the office without understanding the science behind it?
Still can't stand either one. Not entirely happy with johnson either, but I'm interested in pumping up the third party coverage, regardless of the outcome of this election. I doubt it'll tip the scales enough to let them compete on a level playing field, but you don't know until you try.
At least Johnson has governed before.
The only thing Republicans and Democrats agree on is making sure that the electoral system is horribly stacked against newcomers.
I listened to a podcast by 538 and they talked about how incredibly important the data gathered from previous elections is for the current one and not only is trump being hindered by the last republican nominee hating him, but the lousy information being collected by trump (due to an understaffed and poorly run campaign) is going to put who ever runs on the GOP ticket in 2020 at a huge disadvantage.
Uh... That Twitter account is run by @Popehat.
Edit: Here's my favorite article about the matter https://popehat.com/2014/12/20/the-curious-case-of-the-t-v-attorney-and-twitter/
Cool, had no idea. Just saw that and thought it was funny.
y'all defending trump are fucking hilarious
It's really tempting to click my heels together and give 'em a "seig heil, motherfucker."
Your posts suggest that when someone attacks Trump we should just let those assertions go unchallenged, even when they are incorrect. I understand that some people are content with misinformation as long as it fits their narrative, and I've heard ignorance is bliss, but if you two plan to remain ignorant then this thread is probably not going to meet your needs.
Perhaps you should visit https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ instead.
Alas, that seems to be mostly about Trump and how bad he is, rather than Clinton and how good she is.
That's all you've got? "But... but... HILLARY!!!"? That's a false equivalency and you know it.
People with far more insight than you and I put together have made comparisons to 1933 Germany.
Find me a Hillary rally where the press and other independent observers feared for their safety. Take your time, I'll wait...
Is this the beginning of Trump's long slide into centrism? Let's watch.
Trump Adds to Confusion on Immigrants: No Citizenship, but ‘We Work With Them’ (chosen arbitrarily, I read a few articles about this yesterday and none stuck out as particularly well-written)
Trump Adds to Confusion on Immigrants: No Citizenship, but ‘We Work With Them’ (chosen arbitrarily, I read a few articles about this yesterday and none stuck out as particularly well-written)