this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
537 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3295 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Albuquerque officials say Trump now owes the city $444,986 over five years.

Trump’s campaign has left numerous cities with hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills for public safety costs incurred during his rallies. Some cities have hired law firms to collect the debts, while others have required campaigns to pay estimated costs in advance. Despite Trump’s support for law enforcement, his campaign has consistently failed to reimburse local governments for the expenses they incur.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/does-the-trump-campaign-still-owe-el-paso-and-other-cities-money

Like I said, it’s pretty common. I distinctly remember HRC stepping out on several large bills, though I think they were eventually paid. It seems most campaigns end up leaving some bills unpaid, sometimes for quite a long time. Trump, as I mentioned, seems worse than most.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

"Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of relevant information to be found, not all fact briefs produced by Gigafact Foundry reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs."

I think that one comes under the category of superficially balanced by criticising both parties, and technically correct, but out of date in terms of remaining debt and wildly, grossly misleading in terms of the picture it paints.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

bouff sida dee badd!!