Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 12:53 PM Sep 2016

USA Freedom Kids Sue Trump

How do you explain to an 8-year-old the concept of "get paid up front"?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/07/usa-freedom-kids-trump-lawsuit/89953682/

The group of children that performed at Donald Trump’s Pensacola, Fla., rally in January are now suing the Republican nominee's campaign for up to $15,000 in damages, according to news reports.


I wonder what the "optics" of stiffing little girls is? Is it better or worse than running a squeaky-clean charitable foundation that helps millions of people world-wide?
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
USA Freedom Kids Sue Trump (Original Post) gratuitous Sep 2016 OP
Why don't they write an anti-trump song and perform and sell it... lame54 Sep 2016 #1
so these kids got stiffed by a billionaire...that's unexpected? BlueCollar Sep 2016 #2
Unexpected? No gratuitous Sep 2016 #3
They got fired by Trump! What a shocker!!! Initech Sep 2016 #4

lame54

(35,293 posts)
1. Why don't they write an anti-trump song and perform and sell it...
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 01:18 PM
Sep 2016

they will get more money that way even if they win the lawsuit

winning and collecting are two different things

BlueCollar

(3,859 posts)
2. so these kids got stiffed by a billionaire...that's unexpected?
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:51 PM
Sep 2016

This slime ball and his family, friends, supporters screw people for a living.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
3. Unexpected? No
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 03:56 PM
Sep 2016

Trump has a pretty long history of that. But the popular media seem to be obsessed with "optics" lately (whatever in hell that means). The New York Times has gone so far as to say that the Clinton Foundation should be dissolved because there are dark, unsubstantiated rumors swirling around its activities. I don't think the Times quite got to the point of what the millions of people whose lives are bettered and saved through the Foundation's work should do. Curl up and die at the nearest roadside? Anyway, they're out of luck, because the Times feels the optics for the Clinton Foundation are unfavorable.

What will the Times say (if anything) about the optics of a billionaire not paying the little girls who danced at his Pensacola rally? The ones who were disinvited from appearing while en route to Des Moines? The ones who were shunted off to auxiliary seating at Des Moines so long as they promised not to talk to the media they were seated next to (in costume)? To an inexperienced naive political observer like myself, these optics would seem extraordinarily bad. I need the Times and the Washington Post and Fox and Chuck Todd and the rest of the political cognoscenti to tell me why this is really good news for Donald Trump, and shows once again that he's not just equal to the job of president, but surpasses all qualifications in every way.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»USA Freedom Kids Sue Trum...