When you see the "DNC Leak thread" gets bumped up the page just right (after several weeks of inactivity)
![[Image: IazJWlU.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/IazJWlU.jpg)
You're right, and patronage appointments for fundraisers is a bit less ethically-icky.
However, this still plays into Trump's frame from early in the campaign - nobodies without proper experience being put in ambassador roles. Caroline Kennedy in Japan when she can't negotiate her way out of a wet paper bag, etc. And you can still stick a pay-for-play moniker on it anyways, even if people accept it (like I do in a way) as part of a corrupt political process.
Any way we can use this to put egg on the right people's faces, man I hope this is a big part of the news cycle for the near future.
![[Image: IazJWlU.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/IazJWlU.jpg)
Quote: (09-14-2016 07:44 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:
^ Can someone clarify. Are these recent names/ambassadors DNC donors or fundraisers? It looks to me like the names are not donors, but people who have collected donations on behalf of the DNC and whatever these other acronyms are.
Fundraisers being awarded sweet ass ambassador positions makes more sense than donors. The first guy for example, if you had 3.5 million sitting around in cash, would wouldn't be interested in being an ambassador.
You're right, and patronage appointments for fundraisers is a bit less ethically-icky.
However, this still plays into Trump's frame from early in the campaign - nobodies without proper experience being put in ambassador roles. Caroline Kennedy in Japan when she can't negotiate her way out of a wet paper bag, etc. And you can still stick a pay-for-play moniker on it anyways, even if people accept it (like I do in a way) as part of a corrupt political process.
Any way we can use this to put egg on the right people's faces, man I hope this is a big part of the news cycle for the near future.