Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to follow along
Please - if you try to imitate my smugness, at least make sure you've done your homework first. It's really a bad look when you assume this tone and then just show that you haven't even tried.
the link to the store is on Trump's official campaign site labeled as the 'Official Trump Store' so someone from Trump's campaign has ok'd linking to it and actually calling it that.
What you call "Trump's official campaign site" is run by WinRed in conjunction with Trump Save America JFC. Neither of these companies are owned, run, or directed by Donald Trump. Now, 10% of the donations do go to Save America, which was founded by Trump, so there is an indirect association between the website and him. Note that this does not imply he authorised any of the content of the site (and the site expressly tells you he didn't). You then clicked on a link which again
clearly discloses its lack of direct affiliation.
Does that not make sense to you?
No, the situation makes perfect sense to me - it just doesn't make you correct. You happen to be a simpleton who read the word "official" on a website, didn't think to look at the small print, and because you personally dislike Trump, you jumped to conclusions. Your hasty conclusions were then highlighted, but since you also personally dislike me, you went straight for attempted mockery instead of reflecting on yourself.
I don't blame you for being stupid. I do blame you for not trying to work against your nature when you have the opportunity to do so.
And where did I say it breached campaign financing laws?
Please consider reading what I said instead of just imagining it. I was the one that highlighted this conclusion, not you. I said that
if you are correct, then they're likely breaking financing laws. Therefore, if you have evidence that your information is more accurate than that provided on the website, you should disclose it. Here is the exact quote for your convenience:
Do you have a reason to suspect that WinRed are lying about this site? Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws, so if you have any evidence, you should not withhold it.
I think you're thinking of someone else. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and retention.
Again, that tone doesn't work when immediately preceded with you demonstrating that you can't process two sentences in plain English. I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but confidence does
not replace correctness.
I'm guessing that the 'not authorized' language is for a specific purpose as to how and where the money from merch sales gets allocated.
Stack, what makes you think that your "guesses" are more important than the actual legal disclaimers? How have you become so self-important, despite lacking even the most basic knowledge in the subject area you're discussing?
"Oh, well, the website says it's not authorised by the candidate, but
I'm GuEsSiNg that what they actually mean is something else." Get a grip, you actual toddler.
The bottom line is that Trump's official and authorized site promotes and links to the site, calling it the 'Official' store, referenced in the article.
No, the bottom line is that you
think those things. Your thoughts contradict the disclaimers on the website itself. So, either WinRed are lying (in which case you need to present evidence), or you fucked up (in which case the standard protocol is to apologise and retract).
Your task here was
so incredibly simple. I pointed out to you that you forgot to read the webpages you're referencing. All you needed to do is read them before responding. Why did that necessitate this childish outburst from you?
Why that's not clear to you is the real mystery.
Because I value correctness and accuracy. You made a bunch of assertions without evidence and are demanding that others accept it on your confidence and credulity alone. It is vitally important that such quackery is opposed at every step.