[crutonius]

I would like to jump in on this bizarrely heated debate on campaign donations.

It seems to me that the confusion here is regarding the whole Citizen's United thing.  WinRed seems to be a JFC which looks like it's under similar rules to a PAC.  Under those rules an entity that supports a candidate has to keep some kind of distance from that candidate to circumvent certain campaign contribution limits.

The whole thing about these entities is that the rules about what constitutes a reasonable distance from the candidate they support are meaningless.  WinRed for example says, "not endorsed by Trump" or something.  But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.  I also see in their website that 90% goes to Trump's primary.  10% goes to his "save america" fund which is absolutely a grift.  Whatever exceeds the legal limit for a primary campaign contribution goes to Trump's general election campaign fund.

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

[Action80]

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

[Action80]

Here is the transcript of Trump's arraignment, if anyone's interested.

I wonder if they took this page down because it turns out the indictment turned over to the judge violated the 6th amendment rights of Trump. Seems likely.

Bragg admitted malfeasance in its drafting to reporters in a press conference.  LOL!!!

[Pete Svarrior]

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

Happy to oblige.

But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.

Look, I get it, Orange Man Bad. I agree. However, you couldn't have possibly done all this work without realising that "Trump's web page" is also a WinRed fundraiser. You're looking at WinRed calling WinRed official. I also understand the innate need to frame the existence of these separate entities as "circumvention of the rules", and all that jazz, but you're gonna have to present some evidence that WinRed are lying about Trump's not involvement - just saying "yeah, so uhhh they say they're not involved, but that's just a scam" is the intellectual equivalent of a wet fart.

[Rama Set]

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

[Pete Svarrior]

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

Incorrect, but I see you are very determined to punish me for my politeness again. Yes, I focused on markjo's actual point instead of making one up.

If you're gonna do this, can you please take it somewhere else? I can't believe I'm putting markjo in this bucket, but the adults are talking.

[Rama Set]

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

Incorrect, but I see you are very determined to punish me for my politeness again. Yes, I focused on markjo's actual point instead of making one up.

If you're gonna do this, can you please take it somewhere else? I can't believe I'm putting markjo in this bucket, but the adults are talking.

You’re not being polite, don’t kid yourself. If you are unable or unwilling to rebut the point then I’ll just move on from your passive aggressive bitchiness.

[Pete Svarrior]

If you are unable or unwilling to rebut the point

My friend, you have yet to make a point. You've made an unsubstantiated assertion to address a strawman. I am asking you, very politely, to stop. If you continue to escalate this, I will absolutely oblige you and stop being polite.

[Action80]

...unable or unwilling to rebut the point...

You have no point.

[Action80]

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

^Believes it is legal to profit off of campaign contributions.

[markjo]

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit?

[Action80]

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit?

LOL!

Right FUCKING HERE

"Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store..."

If that doesn't read like an instance of "personal profit," then the sky is not blue.

Okay, penguin...describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

[markjo]

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit?

LOL!

Okay penguin, describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

I'm sorry, don't you understand what "indirectly" means?  Proceeds from the sales of Trump merch that goes to his campaign still benefits Trump.

[Action80]

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit?

LOL!

Okay penguin, describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

I'm sorry, don't you understand what "indirectly" means?  Proceeds from the sales of Trump merch that goes to his campaign still benefits Trump.

IOTW :

PERSONALLY BENEFITTING...

Jesus fucking christ...

[crutonius]

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

Happy to oblige.

But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.

Look, I get it, Orange Man Bad. I agree. However, you couldn't have possibly done all this work without realising that "Trump's web page" is also a WinRed fundraiser. You're looking at WinRed calling WinRed official. I also understand the innate need to frame the existence of these separate entities as "circumvention of the rules", and all that jazz, but you're gonna have to present some evidence that WinRed are lying about Trump's not involvement - just saying "yeah, so uhhh they say they're not involved, but that's just a scam" is the intellectual equivalent of a wet fart.

The Orange man is indeed bad but that's not really relevant here.  Super PACs are hardly unique to Trump.  I think if you drill down on any other politician's similar fundraising efforts then you'd see a similar arrangement. 

Am I correct in assuming that you live in the UK?  If so then you're probably not aware of the whole idea of Super PACs.  I'll leave it to you to research that one.  There's quite a bit to go over.  Long story short though, it leads to some campaign finance laws that can be utterly farcical at times, like WinRed plastering Trump's name everywhere to fundraiser, shoving all that money into Trump's campaign coffers but then adding a standard boilerplate "not affiliated yada yada".

[Pete Svarrior]

you're probably not aware of the whole idea of Super PACs.

Sorry, that won't work. I already showed you the paper trail. Just emptily stating that I don't know the things I've demonstrated, introducing (presumably intentionally - after all, you claim to be familiar with WinRed) factual errors into your analysis, and expecting for anyone to accept it with no evidence is cheap. It's also completely unrelated to the subject at hand here, as is your speculation for where I may or may not have lived in the past.

If you can't continue the conversation without resorting to deception, then don't continue it. It won't be tolerated here.

[Lord Dave]

Ok so I emailed the customer service directly about this.



The reply:
Hi Dave,

WinRed is a PAC, which means we are not directly associated with any campaign, however, our platform was officially endorsed by President Trump!


When you donate through WinRed, your donation goes directly to the campaign you want to support — we make sure it gets there!

You can read more about us here.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for contacting the WinRed Donor Support Center!
Lillie



The about page helps clarify some.  The store it a zero touch stores so the campaigns don't need to manage inventory.

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

But its pretty clear that winred is endorced by any candidate who uses it but the platform itself, being a PAC, was not created by a candidate nor do they have control over it.

Thats how it seems to me at this point.

[Pete Svarrior]

Ok so I emailed the customer service directly about this.

Excellent sleuthing work, thanks for doing that

[stack]

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

[Action80]

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.