The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Here (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html) is a recent article from The Failing New York Times about Trump donors that were scammed out of thousands of dollars.  An excerpt:

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.

What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.

“It felt,” Russell said, “like it was a scam.”

But what the Blatts believed was duplicity was actually an intentional scheme to boost revenues by the Trump campaign and the for-profit company that processed its online donations, WinRed. Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election.

Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.

As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a “money bomb,” that doubled a person’s contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language.

The tactic ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars.

---

To reiterate from the article, the company that processed the donations for the Trump campaign is a for-profit company called WinRed.  Their equivalent on the Democratic side is a non-profit company called ActBlue... and ActBlue doesn't charge the kind of fundraising fees that WinRed does, nor did they have these kind of unauthorized recurring payments.  (Full disclosure: I have made multiple donations through ActBlue over the years.)

This extends beyond campaign donations, too.  If you watch Fox News, or listen to conservative talk radio, you'll witness a non-stop deluge of attempts to bleed conservative supporters dry.  From celebrities endorsing sham supplements, to people hawking prepper kits, to those urging the listener to buy gold (at ridiculous markups)... it's a pattern of grift that you simply do not see on MSNBC or other liberal outlets.  (Let's not even get started on the megachurches.)

Why is it that the right financially exploits their audience so much more than the left?  I realize that conservatives skew older than liberals, and scamming elderly people is a bedrock of American capitalism, but that doesn't seen like enough to explain why this isn't nearly as common on the left as on the right.

Churches have been milking suckers for the past thousand years.

Lets just say that the right is predisposed to it.

If I'm to try and answer this honestly, I think it's because their basic strategic message (and religion has this, too) is that "they" (the world at large, the elites, the well-connected, the establishment, the sinners, the Jews, Hollywood, whatever) are lying to you and we uniquely can be trusted to give you the truth.  And that style of marketing ties in really well will peddling bullshit.

The medical establishment is lying to you but you can trust us that this shark extract not authorized by the FDA may help with cancer.
The government is lying to you about risks, so here is a prepper kit so you can take care of yourself when society crumbles.
The banks are lying to you about the stability of the economy, so here's gold coins that will stay valuable when things fall apart.
The sinners are lying to you about morality, so send me money to plant seeds that will grow into your wealth.

It's all offshoots of the same message styling.

The eternal question of "why are republicans so stupid vs why are democrats such pussies"

Fear mongering has been the best marketing tool since the beginning of time.  Religion and Conservatives are probably the biggest proponents of this tactic, but it isn't without representation from the liberal side of the aisle either.   What I find most interesting is that even with all of the advances in science, understanding of the world around us, etc.....fear mongering is still such an effective tool.  

HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE...ETERNAL DAMNATION!!

Oh, and...God loves you!

I agree with this comment but you seem to go astray. If you think only "X" does this then you are sadly mistaken. People take advantage of others' fears all the time and politicians of every race and party do it. It's a manipulation tool that's as old as time itself and is also a big advertising tool.

My very next sentence after the one you quoted includes...."it isn't without representation from the liberal side of the aisle either"

Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate!

My sister told me today (I haven't confirmed it as true) that they had to pay back these cases and they used the "stop the steal" money to do it.

They paid for one grift with another.

But there's also a long history of anti-establishment sentiment on the left, too. (Is there anyone more emblematic of being against the establishment than hippies?) Even so, for some reason the market to scam the left for money isn't nearly as lively as it is on the right.

Sorry ... I apparently didn't read through the whole comment.

This isn't really even the question.  It's not like there's a lack of stupid people on the left or wimps on the right.

I'm wondering why conservative audiences, specifically, are more receptive to grift than liberal audiences.  There's no shortage of dedicated partisans on the left, but you just don't see the kind of pervasive scamming that you do on the right.

I don't know, I think that there are grifts on what could be considered the left, with stuff like homeopathy, any kind of new-age bullshit, psychics and mediums...that kind of stuff.

A couple of answers to the many questions in this thread.

The reason more far righters fall for the grift than the far lefters (hippies)...HIPPIES HAVE NO FUCKING MONEY!

The reason it is so easy to con a far righter... You just tell them that the worst made-up lie in their head is the truth, and that only you can save them, their families and their God, so give liberally (sorry...just "give more") or you let down your family, your country and your God.

Message To The Far Right:  If you don't give generously, this could be the end of baseball, apple pie, and God. Oh, and guns.  They are gonna take your guns too.
Message To The Far Left:  If you don't give generously, this could be the end of baby seals and trees, and we are all going to drown from global warming. 

I want to follow up on something:


Based on this response and D4L's response thread, I think the purpose of my original post is being misunderstood.

This is not a "Why are conservatives so racist and evil?" thread; that question does not have an interesting (or productive) answer.  My question is about why conservatives are so eager to fleece people on the same team.  As in, why would you target your own allies as marks for these scams?

I mean, if you're a hardcore libertarian and you believe that anyone who gets talked out of their money didn't deserve to keep it in the first place, then fine; at least that's an ethos.  But if you don't believe in that kind of survival of the fittest rat race, how can you tolerate this kind of behavior?  Why hasn't this been stomped out on the right?

That's exactly how I see it. If you willingly give someone your money, it's on you. Same when you purchase something on Ebay, Amazon, or a used car lot. Caveat emptor. The same thing happens on the left also, just in a different form.

Females are a perfect example, especially single mothers. I've ran across a few in my day, but they're pretty much everywhere these days. They'll have a few random dudes that they have no interest in. But they'll flirt with them, act interested in them, send nude pictures to them, etc. Then the sob story about needing money to help with rent, fix the car, groceries, kid's birthday, etc. The whole time they have a boyfriend(s) they're living with, in relationships with, fucking, etc.

Even though we're talking about politicians, it's not really even about politics or being on the same team. This type of behavior has always been there, it's just getting worse. We've all probably been ripped off or scammed one way or the other at some point. You learn a lesson and move forward. Or you continue to be the victim.

If you continue to pet a dog that bites you, is it really the dogs fault?

I'm with you on this one.  Of course I have empathy for people like the elderly who have diminished cognitive abilities, etc. so I'm not including groups like that.  But for the most part, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to fix people's stupid decisions.  Of course if they are a victim of a criminal scam, that would also be different.  But people who get suckered into giving their money to religious causes or any other kind of thing that this thread has talked about have nobody to blame but themselves.  Poor decisions in life come with consequences. 

Could we please stop with this kind of bullshit "the past was better and more pure and less mean than now"

That's just simply not true. Every time someone posts this on whatever topic, it's 99% due to ignorance.  The "good old days" weren't good .. scams were way more prevalent. Crime was way higher. Disease was rampant. Child labor was a thing. Your food poisoned you. Civilization literally had to invent crappy beer so they wouldn't die from drinking water.

As I told the Jehovahs Witnesses that came to my door last year, with the premise that the world was getting more dangerous and wanted me to get all jesus-y.

We have never lived in a more prosperous, fair and safe world and as a group, humans have never had longer life expectancy and levels of education. We're even finally turning away from the bronze age superstitions that have shackled us for thousands of years. And finally embracing our potential free from the kind of garbage they were at my door for.

The old days sucked.

I said behavior. The "I want it now", "hustling", "grinding", "in the bag"(whatever the fuck that means) crowd. All they talk about is money and stuff. Living paycheck to paycheck, behind on bills, and posting FB pictures of themselves at work talking "them coins". My first thought is, "Wow retard, you have a job and make some money to survive." It's a fucked up mindset and it started sometime in the late 90's/early 2000's. These are the same type people that justify taking advantage of other people. Those type people have always been there to an extent. They are everywhere now. It has nothing to do with the "good old days", crime, or disease. It's more like the dumbing down of society.

And that includes minorities. 2021 and they have never had a more prosperous, fair and safe world to live in. I'm glad you admitted what some of us have known all along.

In someways your question is why are conservatives pro-ripping people off. 

But several reasons....

Democrats are in general pro-consumer protection while conservatives are buyer beware.  So it would be very off brand for Bernie Sanders to hide the fact in the fine print that donations are reoccurring, while it is very on brand for Trump.  So republicans are more likely to attempt to rip someone off.  (of either party)

While their are gullible people on both sides.  The republicans have a sizeable group of supporters that are gullible enough to support a party that economic policy greatly hurt them.  Democrats like Warren Buffet who support the democratic party despite not being in his best financial interest do so, his reason is not being gullible but altruistic


Democrats don’t trust republicans.  You need trust for the scam to work.  That is why Trump targeted his own supportsers, rather than Biden’s. 

We're not talking about consumers. There is no such thing as idiot protection. You are an adult, it's up to you to determine who to GIVE your money to. If you make a mistake, like we all have in life. You learn a lesson and adjust your actions in the future. If you don't, you're an idiot and deserve the situation that you put yourself in.

No idiot protection? I'm sure the Attorneys General office and the Federal Trade Commission would object, as both of these agencies help deal with stopping scammers. For that matter, pretty much everything in the world of law enforcement would qualify as well.

We have a society designed to help protect idiots from criminals...and themselves. Is it 100% effective? of course not. As long as humans are involved, you'll always have imperfections, inconsistencies, biases, etc...

Most scammers are trying to sell you something. That's not what I"m talking about, I'm talking about people who straight up ask you for shit. Whether you decide to help the local wildlife preserve, the whore that's flirting with you, or a politician. It's your choice to HELP/GIVE/DONATE to them. Once you do that, they owe you nothing.

Even then you have the right to not be defrauded, eg told your money will be used to build a wall and the money actually used for someones vacation.

Don't trust people with your money because everyone wants your money. Your money is your responsibility. Learn a lesson and move forward.

that's true, the problem is that better does not mean equal .. better does not mean fair .. better does not mean equitable

better simply means that compared to being a minority in 1790 or 1820 or 1850 or 1890 or 1920 or 1950, now is better than those days

Not that I necessarily disagree, but this is a really strange statement to hear from a conservative.

So you're saying that we are better (or even, dare I say, greater) than at any point in the past?  2021 is greater than 2015, which was greater than 2005, which was greater than 1985 or 1955...?

It's almost like those who call for a return to a prior time of greatness are referring to a very specific thing...

Just a few examples ... In the 80's all of us had guns in their truck let alone they were hanging in the window and no one was afraid they would get shot or that anyone would break the window and steal them. We'd even have teachers or deans come out to look at new guns. Kids could walk the streets pretty much anywhere and not worry about being taken.

Safer schools and safer society  ...  it was definitely better back then regardless of if a man would have been made fun of for wearing a dress.

Were those guns mostly shotguns and hunting rifles or were they semiautomatic assault rifles capable of firing 30 rounds of ammunition between reloading?

this is not better, there should be 0 guns in trucks or at schools


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego))
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,828393,00.html (http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,828393,00.html)

Again .. not better .. learn your history.

Just because things were better "for you" doesn't make them true for everyone. This is what privilege looks like btw. Your experiences are anecdotal.

""""  You can't seriously be making the claim that school shooting aren't any worse today than they were 40 years ago. That is definitely one area where things were better nack in the day. 

Another is in the 50s you could afford to buy a house on a minimum wage job.  Likewise you could pay college tuition and live on a 30 hour a week minimum wage job graduating debt free.  Retirement and health care benifits were also much better for most middle and low wage workers.

Yes we had semi auto rifles along wit h our shotguns. In fact fully auto were legal during that time but I didn't have one. I had a Ruger .222 semi auto rifle as a young teen which is only slightly different from the .223 that the scary AR platform shoots today. It was considered a gun for varmints.

The crime rate in the US prior to the mid-'90s was shocking and is almost unbelievable today compared to today.

more people, more schools, more reporting today, Same violence, and lets not even get into the systemic violence when school employees used to beat children. Or when bullying was accepted and you could get punched by a kid in recess that wanted your lunch money.

We had strong unions at one point, these sorts of things are what happens when you have strong labor force collective bargaining.

Then we started destroying our unions and worker leverage so is it no surprise that low and middle wage earners' lives got difficult.

mod edit: fixed tag

Speaking of grifting....NRA's new motto "Only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good friend with a luxury yacht.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/06/nra-wayne-lapierre-yacht-parkland/?outputType=amp

Apparently you either didn't live in the 80's or your memory is faulty. Of course people were afraid of those people who had guns in the 80's. The difference is that guy with the gun in 80's had a shotgun (used to hunt ducks in season) and enough ammo to shoot maybe 5 people...if they were slow. Now the guy with the gun has an assault weapon (with no discernable purpose) with enough ammo to shoot 100 people in 20 seconds. See the difference? No one was that interested in getting rid of that shotgun because the guy didn't really pose much of a threat (they didn't carry body armor around in their truck as far as I know) and because it actually had a useful purpose.

Your reply shows that you have no knowledge of firearms. So you really shouldn't be giving your opinion until you educate yourself. Assault rifles, as you put it, are fully automatic. Assault rifles produced in the last 35 years are military weapons and are not available to the general population.

Other than being a made up political term, please enlighten me in detail as to what an assault weapon actually is. Also, include how a semi automatic "assault weapon" is actually different than an other semi automatic firearm? This should be fun, LMFAO

Oh god, not this "IT'S NOT A CLIP IT'S A MAGAZINE" BS again.

It's weird how you only play this "You used the wrong terminology, therefore your opinion on this subject is invalid" game when it comes to guns, and not on, say, tax policy.

They are literally "TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". If you want to discuss "tax policy" start a thread. But if Hoodie or anyone else is going to lie to push an agenda in this thread and imply that the general population owns assault rifles. He is 100% wrong on that point and will be called out EVERY TIME.

Why do liberals and the media use fake made up political terms like assault weapon, ghost gun, or weapon of war? Could it be to just to insincerely strike fear into voters who are too ignorant to know the difference? To trick people into thinking an assault weapon(made up thing) is the same as and assault rifle(real thing). This is how fake news starts and spreads like wildfire. Ignorant people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

The real purpose liberals do this is to CONFLATE all firearms as being "weapons of war" and eliminate everyone's 2nd amendment right. In reality, the general population has access to semi automatic firearms, NOT assault rifles. The fact is that Ruger 10/22, Glock, or AR15 are all the same. None of them are more dangerous than the other.

If people are going to discuss a topic they should at least have a concept of what they're talking about and how it works. If not, they need to excuse themselves and educate themselves before continuing the conversation. Especially when they are 100% wrong. If I go to a mechanic to get my car fixed and he doesn't know the difference between the alternator and water pump. He gets laughed at and dismissed. This is the same thing. If you want to discuss facts, fine. If you want to talk about unicorns and leprechauns then start a different thread.

When it comes to this subject, and only this subject, you obsessively focus on "proper use of terminology" as a way to avoid discussing these issues on the merits.

It literally does not matter what we CALL them, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Great, since "use of proper terminology" doesn't matter. Go ahead and pass the law, you have my support.

But when you pass the law to ban certain weapons. Make sure the actual terms used in the text of the bill are to ban "assault rifles" and "clips over 10 rounds". How does that sound Spider? You want to debate about passing a law that restricts the rights of the citzens, but you don't want to use the terminology that's going to be used in that actual law.

WTF kind of drugs are you smoking? This has to be the stupidest thing you've ever said. But I'm sure you'll out do yourself eventually.