[TheRealThing]

Big donors are not opening up their wallets to Trump because they approve of the "suggestions" that Trump has made in public. They are parting with their money to buy access to Trump in case he wins in November. That's not a shot at Trump, it is true of every presidential candidate in modern history.

When Trump donated to candidates running in general elections - Presidential, Congressional, or statewide elections - does anybody believe that those donations were merely a way of saying thank you for what the candidates proposed during primary elections? Of course not, that's just not how our political system works. Trump expected a return on his investment, just like every big donor does.

A company can make or lose millions depending on whether the federal government approves the export of some dual use technology. Billionaires do not donate money to political candidates with no expectation of a return. As they say, the devil is in the details voters rarely learn the details.

The timing of donations is irrelevant. Politicians sell access to themselves and they listen to large donors describe their needs.

Trump's repeated claims to be self funded was dishonest. He accepted donations and he has loaned his campaign millions. If he loses in November, he is free to use the money raised in the general campaign to retire that debt by repaying himself. If he wins and is very successful at raising money from big donors, then maybe he will delay or forego paying the campaign debt for political reasons. Trump did not become a billionaire by leaving money on the table that was there for the taking.

If Trump was ever determined to self fund, then all he had to do was write checks to his campaign instead of issuing loans to the campaign.

Finally, if only money donated during the primary season influenced politicians, then why would large donors not just dump more money into candidates' coffers during the primaries and then let them fend for themselves during the general campaign?

The answer is that politicians never stop soliciting donations to campaigns as long as they intend to run in another election and they are just as glad to receive the money during a fall campaign as a spring campaign. A debt is a debt.

Relevant to you is a strange and wonderful thing I am sure, as is the tired, ever convoluting cul-de-sac of a rationale, that you insist in putting on display here over and over ad-nauseum. The point is that Trump is not just another in a line of establishment props, properly coopted into the establishment fold, (in this case the Keynesian, secular humanistic, social justice fold) and then paraded in front of the slumbering electorate who are then expected as in times past to dutifully pull the appropriate handle. The people went around the establishment this time. Unfortunately for you, they went for somebody you don't like. At any rate, you have no answer whatever except to attack every thing and every body, you admitted as much a few posts back.

But you are above the fray, are you not? You vote libertarian or 3rd party if memory of elections past serve. You're on here to get a circular firing squad going in hopes of one day seeing that libertarian candidate rise up like the Great Pumpkin out of the political pumpkin patch to become president. And after all, what with outside candidates knocking down upwards of one percent of the popular vote, your odds are getting better. :biggrin: I don't agree with you, Trump did self fund his campaign and was nominated. It is irrational to expect him to fund the campaign now that he is the nominee.

And as in the case of the Republican nominee, when you refused to accept the overwhelmingly obvious, you will continue to sidestep and deny long after the time of any shred of relevant influence has past. Nobody wants a president who thinks the issue of the day is legalizing drugs.