DAMN!! How will HISTORY look back on Trump, Fox News & all his supporters during Coronavirus & AFTER he leaves office? UPDATE: Trump WON
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
Sanaa lathan never forget.
Secretly recorded audio tapes aired on CNN capture Melania Trump talking about criticism over border separation policy
In recorded conversations aired on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, the first lady is heard expressing apparent frustration over having to work on White House Christmas decorations and receiving criticism for the Trump administration's policy on separating children from their families at the US border. Melania Trump's former friend and adviser Stephanie Winston Wolkoff taped the conversations in 2018 after leaving the White House, according to CNN.
Fuck that stank cac retarded bitch.
Rick Santorum on Trump's Proud Boy comments: He doesn't like condemning supporters
Trump doesn't like to "say something bad about people who support him."
www.axios.com
Rick Santorum on Trump's Proud Boy comments: He doesn't like condemning supporters
Axios
Former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, a frequent defender of President Trump, said on CNN that Trump declined to explicitly condemn white supremacists when asked to at Tuesday's debate because he doesn't like to "say something bad about people who support him."
Why it matters: Trump has been criticized repeatedly throughout his tenure for his reticence to condemn right-wing violence, instead opting — as he did at the debate — to divert attention to Antifa and left-wing violence. Trump said on Tuesday that the far-right Proud Boys should "stand back and stand by" — a comment that the group is now seizing on as a dog whistle on online message boards.
What they're saying: "The Democrats owe a lot to Chris Wallace, because Chris Wallace asked those two questions, not Joe Biden. And he asked them for a reason. Because he asked two questions, where he was asking the president to do something he knows the president doesn't like to do," Santorum said on a CNN panel.
- "Which is say something bad about people who support him. Talking about the white supremacists."
@easy_b
I wish a cac would
BGOL ain't shit sometimes. I agree with this fruity cac. He makes some great points in his argument. However, this faggit will never get my vote for anything until he pays his dues and start fucking with black people.
Less than three weeks before the election, some Republican lawmakers are beginning to publicly distance themselves from the president in a rush to re-establish their reputations and political brands. |
Senator Ted Cruz warned of a “Republican blood bath of Watergate proportions,” and Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the president’s most vocal allies, predicted the president could very well lose the White House. They’re pictured on Capitol Hill this week. |
Mr. Trump’s cabinet also fears a November loss: Cabinet departments are scrambling to push through dozens of new regulations that will affect the lives of millions of people. |
Separately, Women’s March protesters took to the streets in Washington on Saturday, galvanized by their opposition to Mr. Trump and his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The march was met with a counterprotest in support of Judge Barrett. |
A Regulatory Rush by Federal Agencies to Secure Trump’s Legacy (Published 2020)
With the president’s re-election in doubt, cabinet departments are scrambling to finish dozens of new rules affecting millions of Americans.
A Regulatory Rush by Federal Agencies to Secure Trump’s Legacy
With the president’s re-election in doubt, cabinet departments are scrambling to finish dozens of new rules affecting millions of Americans.
Tankers at a railroad in Texas. President Trump has played a direct role in pushing to accelerate a provision that allows railroads to move highly flammable loads of liquefied natural gas on freight trains.Credit...Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg
By Eric Lipton
- Published Oct. 16, 2020Updated Oct. 18, 2020, 3:16 p.m. ET
- 1189
The effort is evident in a broad range of federal agencies and encompasses proposals like easing limits on how many hours some truckers can spend behind the wheel, giving the government more freedom to collect biometric data and setting federal standards for when workers can be classified as independent contractors rather than employees.
In the bid to lock in new rules before Jan. 20, Mr. Trump’s team is limiting or sidestepping requirements for public comment on some of the changes and swatting aside critics who say the administration has failed to carry out sufficiently rigorous analysis.
Some cases, like a new rule to allow railroads to move highly flammable liquefied natural gas on freight trains, have led to warnings of public safety threats.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Every administration pushes to complete as much of its agenda as possible when a president’s term is coming to an end, seeking not just to secure its own legacy but also to tie the hands of any successor who tries to undo its work.
But as Mr. Trump completes four years marked by an extensive deregulatory push, the administration’s accelerated effort to put a further stamp on federal rules is drawing questions even from some former top officials who served under Republican presidents.
- Unlock more free articles.
“Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion,” said Susan E. Dudley, who served as the top White House regulatory official during the George W. Bush administration. “It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those.”
Administration officials said they were simply completing work on issues they have targeted since Mr. Trump took office in 2017 promising to curtail the reach of federal regulation.
“President Trump has worked quickly from the beginning of his term to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations,” Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which oversees regulatory policy, said in a statement.
Editors’ Picks
‘S.N.L.’ Takes on Trump and Biden’s Dueling Town Halls
Sacha Baron Cohen: This Time He’s Serious
A ‘Perfect’ Chocolate Chip Cookie, and the Chef Who Created It
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
If Democrats take control of Congress, they will have the power to reconsider some of these last-minute regulations, through a law last used at the start of Mr. Trump’s tenure by Republicans to repeal certain rules enacted at the end of the Obama administration.
Image
A proposal to set federal standards for defining when a worker is an independent contractor or an employee will affect companies like Uber and Lyft as well as millions of workers.Credit...Karsten Moran for The New York Times
But the Trump administration is also working to fill key vacancies on scientific advisory boards with members who will hold their seats far into the next presidential term, committees that play an important role in shaping federal rule making.
Few of the planned shifts have drawn more scrutiny and criticism than a Labor Department proposal to set federal standards for defining when a worker is an independent contractor or an employee, a step that could affect millions of workers.
The issue has come to a boil as states like California have tried to push companies like Uber and Lyft to classify workers as employees, meaning they would be entitled to benefits such as overtime pay and potentially health insurance, a move that the companies have challenged.
The proposed Labor Department rule creates a so-called economic reality test, such as whether workers set their own schedules or can earn more money by hiring helpers or acquiring new equipment.
The department, in the proposed rule, said it cannot predict how many workers may see their status change as a result of the new definitions because of “uncertainties regarding magnitude and other factors.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But it is nonetheless pushing to have the rule finished before the end of Mr. Trump’s first term, limiting the period of public comment to 30 days, half the amount of time that agencies are supposed to offer.
That has generated letters of protest from Senate Democrats and 22 state attorneys general.
“Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes,” said a letter organized by Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and signed by 16 other Democratic senators.
The Departments of Labor and Homeland Security are using a tactic known as an interim final rule, more typically reserved for emergencies, to skip the public comment period entirely and to immediately enact two regulations that put much tougher restrictions on work visas for immigrants with special skills. The rule change is part of the administration’s longstanding goal of limiting immigration.
The Homeland Security Department is also moving, again with an unusually short 30-day comment period, to adopt a rule that will allow it to collect much more extensive biometric data from individuals applying for citizenship, including voice, iris and facial recognition scans, instead of just the traditional fingerprint scan. The measure, which the agency said was needed to curb fraud, would also allow it for the first time to collect DNA or DNA test results to verify a relationship between an application for citizenship and someone already in the United States.
A third proposed new Homeland Security rule would require sponsors of immigrants to do more to prove they have the financial means to support the individual they are backing, including three years’ worth of credit reports, credit scores, income tax returns and bank records. Anyone who accepted welfare benefits during the previous three years would be unable to sponsor an immigrant unless a second person agrees to do so.
Image
Mr. Trump’s team is limiting or sidestepping requirements for public comment on some of the changes and swatting aside critics who say the administration has failed to carry out sufficiently rigorous analysis.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
The agency is limiting public comment on that change to 30 days as well.
Unlike most of the efforts the administration has pushed, the rules intended to tighten immigration standards would expand federal regulations, instead of narrowing them. They also come at a considerable cost, estimated to be more than $6 billion just for the new demands related to immigrants’ biometric data and proof of financial capacity for those sponsoring immigrants.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The Environmental Protection Agency, which since the start of the Trump administration has been moving at a high speed to rewrite federal regulations, is expected to complete work in the weeks that remain in Mr. Trump’s term on two of the nation’s most important air pollution rules: standards that regulate particulates and ozone that is formed based on emissions from power plants, car exhaust and other sources.
These two pollutants are blamed for bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer and other ailments, causing an estimated 7,140 premature deaths a year in the United States, according to one recent study. The agency is proposing to keep these standards at their current levels, provoking protests from certain health experts and environmentalists who argue that the agency is obligated to lower the limits after new evidence emerged about the harm the pollutants cause.
Scott Pruitt, who served as the E.P.A. administrator in the first 17 months of Mr. Trump’s tenure, set as a goal before he left office to get these new standards adopted by December 2020, even though the agency had previously expected they would not be finished until 2022.
The agency also is rushing to complete a series of regulations that will almost certainly make it harder for future administrations to tighten air pollution and other environmental standards, including a limit on how science is used in rule making and a change to the way costs and benefits are evaluated to justify new rules.
Image
The Environmental Protection Agency has been moving at a high speed to rewrite federal regulations.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Mr. Trump has played a direct role in pushing to accelerate some regulations. Among them is a provision finished this summer, nicknamed “bomb trains” by its critics, that allows railroads to move highly flammable loads of liquefied natural gas on freight trains. Mr. Trump signed an executive order last year directing the Transportation Department to enact the rule within 13 months — even before it had been formally proposed.
The change was backed by the railroad and natural gas industry, which has donated millions of dollars to Mr. Trump, after construction of pipelines had been blocked or slowed after protests by environmentalists.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But the proposal provoked an intense backlash from a diverse array of prominent public safety officials. Among them were groups representing thousands of mayors, firefighters and fire marshals nationwide and even the federal government’s own National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates fatal transportation accidents.
The gas is stored in 30,000-gallon rail tanks at minus 260 degrees to keep it compressed. But if accidentally released during an accident, it would rapidly expand by nearly 600 times as the temperature rises and cause what is known as a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion” that if ignited could not be quickly extinguished, potentially resulting in widespread injury or death if it occurs in a populated area, the firefighters warned.
“It is nearly certain any accident involving a train consisting of multiple rail cars loaded with L.N.G. will place vast numbers of the public at risk while fully depleting all local emergency response forces,” Harold A. Schaitberger, the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, wrote in a letter opposing the proposal.
The Transportation Department still adopted the rule and rejected proposed speed limits for the trains, generating a petition for a court review by 14 states and the District of Columbia.
“Studies on how to safely transport liquefied natural gas by rail are still ongoing, and this administration has rushed to implement a rule that will needlessly endanger people’s lives and threaten our environment,” Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, said.
Even while the challenge is underway, the Transportation Department has moved to enact another rule easing safety standards, in this case removing a requirement intended to limit the number of hours truck drivers are allowed behind the wheel and to mandate rest periods.
Certain drivers who carry agricultural products would now be exempt from this federal mandate in a standard that would again be adopted as an “interim final rule,” meaning it would be put in place before any public comment is accepted, under the plan announced by the agency.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“Fatigued truck drivers remain a stubbornly high cause of fatal highway accidents,” said James Goodwin, a lawyer at the Center for Progressive Reform, a nonprofit group that tracks regulatory actions. “The law permits agencies to take short cuts when there are extraordinary circumstances that call for them. That is not present here.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
Fearing a ‘Blood Bath,’ Republican Senators Begin to Edge Away From Trump (Published 2020)
The statements offer an answer to the question of when Republicans might begin to repudiate the president after years of embracing him: the moment they believed he threatened their own political survival.
2020 Elections: In Two Midwest Rallies, Trump Rails Against Left (Published 2020)
As polls show former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ahead in the race for the presidency, millions of Americans are already voting by mail.
Jeff Flake cuts Joe Biden AD ... 2020 is wild
Yeah I know... he endorsed Biden at the Convention but seeing this in a Ad is just wild. Man they wisely turned the comments off on this video.
www.bgol.us
'I can't imagine attaching my name': How owners hide their political donations
The spotlight on political donations is bright, but there's a push among some ownership groups to avoid it.
Election 2020: How sports owners hide political donations from players and fans
The spotlight on political donations is bright, but there's a push among some ownership groups to avoid it. DARREN ABATE/EPA
7:00 AM ET
- Baxter HolmesESPN Senior Writer
Editor's note: This is one in a series of six pieces that shows how professional sports owners in America contribute to political campaigns, why they spend millions in the space and what that financial power means as athletes across sports continue to embrace activism of their own.
DURING A RECENT weekend gathering, an NBA owner ranted to confidants about the upcoming presidential election. It was early fall, with the election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden still about a month away. The setting was idyllic: sunshine, the ocean, a ZIP code occupied by the affluent.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Listen," the owner mused, "I'm so worried about Biden's regulations, so I'm funding as much as I can privately and confidentially to get Trump reelected. I know he's crazy, and I hope Democrats take the House and the Senate, but then Trump can block stuff and protect us on the taxes and regulation."
The source who was present is involved in ownership groups across leagues, and that source relayed that moment in response to a question:
Are professional sports team owners making political donations privately, in ways that not only shield their identity but shield them from backlash from their own players, staffers and fans?
The answer was a resounding yes -- and it happens regularly.
"There's no question," the source said.
"The overwhelming majority of sports team owners are Republicans. And they are very concerned about taxes, obviously, and regulation for their businesses."
To drive the point home, the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described attending NBA board of governors meetings, where politics has become a growing topic of conversation in recent years.
This is a group of 30 power brokers whose average net worth hovers in the neighborhood of about $2 billion. Their total wealth combined is upward of $140 billion -- more than the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of at least 130 countries. They're invested in a league whose annual basketball-related income, at least as of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons, is more than $7 billion annually. But because of the coronavirus pandemic, the financial future of the league is murky. (And the same is true of the various industries that helped generate these owners' wealth.) If the adage about voting by pocketbook applies to anyone, it applies to these owners, perhaps more than ever.
How these team owners use those means has perhaps never been so scrutinized, especially with players calling for action from their team owners to push for social justice reform. The spotlight on political donations is bright; but according to the source involved with ownership groups, there's a push to avoid it, to donate privately and confidentially.
"Those conversations," the source said, "are happening daily."
MORE: What motivates billionaire owners to donate to campaigns?
Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta, right, is one of the NBA's biggest political donors, while Warriors' owner Joe Lacob hasn't made a publicly available contribution since 2012. Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images
ACCORDING TO ESPN'S analysis of the available Federal Election Commission campaign donation data, professional sports team owners from the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB have publicly contributed almost $45 million in disclosed donations to federal elections since 2015. That figure spans 144 owners and commissioners among 102 teams. Ten owners haven't made any such donations in that time frame, according to FEC data.
That is what is known.
But there is another way people can donate, and it's far more hidden: so-called "dark money" contributions, which are typically made via nonprofit organizations. A donator -- a team owner, for example -- who wishes to remain anonymous, can give to a nonprofit, which makes the donation in its name rather than that of the individual.
It's an avenue that is attractive to high-profile people who don't wish to alienate customers -- or fans and players, in the case of sports.
But like a regular citizen, a wealthy team owner cannot simply donate whatever he or she wishes. There are rules.
According to FEC guidelines, a person can give a maximum of $2,800 to a federal candidate in an election cycle -- or $5,600 total, including the primary and general election. The funds must be from a personal account, and the donation must be disclosed, which means the donator's name and the amount donated will become public.
EDITOR'S PICKS
- Inside the political donation history of wealthy sports owners
- What motivates billionaire sports owners to donate to political campaigns?
The donor could give to a super PAC -- a political action committee that can make independent expenditures to support that candidate and can accept unlimited donations -- but that too is publicly disclosed.
Enter dark money contributions.
People can donate funds -- as much as they would like -- to a 501(c)4 "social welfare organization." That's the IRS designation for the tax code that grants these groups nonprofit status; and unlike a candidate's campaign and super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors. It is through these (c)4 groups -- the parlance used by those who study campaign finance -- that the majority of dark money flows.
How does it help your candidate? One example goes like this:
You donate $1 million to, say, America First Policies, a 501(c)4 that does not disclose its donors. America First Policies could then give $1 million to America First Action, a super PAC that does disclose its donors and is spending 100% of its money supporting Trump. At the end of this transaction, all the public knows is that America First Policies gave America First Action $1 million. The original source of the money is never disclosed, but the donor has been able to help the candidate by proxy.
Another option, according to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who is a staunch critic of undisclosed spending, are "donor-advised" funds.
"These entities have no purpose other than as a screening intermediary through which funds flow," Whitehouse wrote in an email to ESPN. "In go huge contributions from a donor, with instructions on how the money should be spent; out the money goes to electioneering groups that can spend it with no true record of where the money originated."
The reasons to remain anonymous are many.
On one hand, a donor might simply want privacy. A donor might want to avoid being bombarded by calls to donate from other candidates within a certain political affiliation. A donor might want a candidate to do them a favor, and the donor would much prefer that it appear as if the candidate did such an act out of the goodness of his or her own heart rather than have the appearance that it was, in fact, transactional.
In today's climate, a donor also might want to avoid a boycott from customers and staffers -- and sports owners needn't look far for an example.
This is the era of high-profile boycotts, after all. Nike faced calls for a boycott after launching a national advertising campaign featuring former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who sparked a nationwide controversy by kneeling during the national anthem. An Oklahoma state representative, Sean Roberts, a Republican, warned the Oklahoma City Thunder that he would reexamine the team's tax benefits if their players kneeled. San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich told The New York Times in June that his anti-Trump comments after the election led to some Spurs fans canceling their season tickets.
On the other side of the aisle, Facebook has faced boycotts from advertisers and civil rights groups over its stance on political ads and its unwillingness to take down pages that spread misinformation. Florida shoppers planned boycotts of the supermarket chain Publix in 2018 after it donated $670,000 to a gubernatorial candidate who supported the National Rifle Association. California fast-food chain In-N-Out faced calls for boycotts after it donated $25,000 to the California GOP in 2018.
"[Take donating to] a cause like Planned Parenthood," a co-owner of an NBA team told ESPN, speaking only on the condition of anonymity. "There'll be a lot of people in the South that don't like that organization and a lot of people in the North that are fine with it. If you own a team in Oklahoma City, is donating to that gonna cause you issues?
"On most political issues in America," the co-owner continued, "50% of the people support the issue and 50% don't. And so do you want to alienate 50% of your fans potentially?"
DARK MONEY IS a hot trend, but it's by no means new. Undisclosed political donations started to rise in the wake of the Buckley v. Valeo U.S. Supreme Court case in 1976, which, in part, ruled that nonprofits could spend unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money on "issue advocacy" as a form of free speech. But a turning point came in 2010 in the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United v. FEC case, which allowed the creation of super PACs, by ruling, in part, that political groups that did not coordinate with a candidate's campaign could raise and spend unlimited funds to influence voters near an election -- from corporations, CEOs and others.
"Once that dam broke, it just unleashed this massive amount of money into our political system," said Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Tracking owners' political donations
This is how professional sports owners contribute to political campaigns, why they spend millions and what that financial power means.
• Owners' donation history
• The three types of contributions
• Inside the NFL's PAC
• How owners hide spending
Since that 2010 decision, roughly a billion dollars of undisclosed capital has flowed into election cycles. An estimate from the Center for Responsive Politics and the Wesleyan Media Project on Sept. 11, 2020, found that dark money groups have spent more than $182 million in political ads in the 2020 election cycle.
The person who spoke with ESPN who is close to several ownership groups said owners are quietly hoping for the status quo.
"Dark money and holding on to the opportunity to have silent money come into the system is what they're dreaming about," the person told ESPN. "That's the most important thing, and so they're like, 'We've got to get this nomination through.'"
Until then, the spending only increases. One Congressional campaign finance expert who spoke on the condition of anonymity estimated that the last election raised about $6 billion in spending -- a portion of which was undisclosed -- and that this upcoming election might nearly double that amount.
"It's not Republican or Democrats," said Charles Lewis, who founded the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization. "It's both. It's ugly, and it's uglier than ever."
"For me, I never wanted any impact [that] I do or don't have to be driven by money," Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, at right, told ESPN. EPA/ERIK S. LESSER
MAVERICKS OWNER MARK CUBAN has long been a heavy follower of politics, as vocal as perhaps any NBA owner. He has blogged about politics, and in 2016, he called a potential presidential run a "fun idea to toss around." He tweeted that he might run for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. He formally endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president at a rally in Pittsburgh. This past May, he voiced support for Biden during an appearance on Fox News and then endorsed him in June. Cuban frequently spars on Twitter with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas.
Yet when it comes to spending money on politics, Cuban is far more circumspect, according to ESPN's analysis of FEC campaign donation data. He made two donations totaling $6,000 in 1996 to support U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, and he donated $1,000 in 2002 to support U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California.
That's it.
Cuban is among the aforementioned 10 owners in ESPN's analysis of FEC data -- and one of only four in the NBA -- who haven't made any such donations since 2015. Cuban said he hasn't made any undisclosed donations, either.
"No, never," he wrote to ESPN in an email. "For the same reason I don't donate to politicians. There are far better places to invest."
"I do find value in investing to get results for issues that are important to me," Cuban wrote in a separate email. "There are many charities and causes I give to. Sometimes I let them use my name. Most times I do not. There are many things in this life bigger than the NBA. Some things bigger than business. So I can see why other owners, like myself, would make choices that may not be popular today, hoping to achieve a desired goal, such as ending or at least reducing racism."
As Cuban suggests, there is, in the end, the question of value: What does a donation earn a donor anyway? To many experts, it's as simple as having some measure of influence, a proximity to power, the ability to develop a relationship with a politician.
"You'll have some access," one NBA owner said. "Somebody will pick up your call. Now will they do what you tell them? No."
There are ways to support candidates and causes beyond money, as Cuban has done. But historically, according to Lewis, a journalism professor at American University in Washington, D.C., who has studied campaign finance for decades, few things propel causes and candidates like the almighty dollar.
"The bottom line," Lewis said, "is money talks."
For those who own teams, such connections can be helpful if there are particular measures or policies that might affect, say, the building of a new arena.
It also can help yield a potentially prestigious post. Woody Johnson, the New York Jets owner, who has long donated to Republican candidates and causes, endorsed Trump in 2016 and became one of six finance vice chairmen tasked with helping raise $1 billion for Trump. In 2017, Trump named Johnson the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
But there also is cachet, said Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in election law. The chance to be invited to a dinner with the elected official, to take a photo with the official that looks nice framed on an office wall, to be kept in the loop on matters of import to the donor.
These donations are, in the end, a personal decision, as Cuban said.
"Every American citizen has to make their own choices about how they do or don't participate in the political process," he wrote in an email. "For me, I never wanted any impact [that] I do or don't have to be driven by money. Either there is value in the conversations I have with politicians or there isn't. There isn't [anything] much slimier than a politician undertaking an effort because I effectively paid them. I don't want any part of that."
For Cuban, it's simple. For others, such a decision has arguably never been more complicated.
"I can't imagine attaching my name to such a polarizing topic in terms of donations," said one member of an NBA ownership group. "At the end of the day, if I want to get my beliefs out there, I'm going to vote. I think that's ultimately contributing to change more than anything. If I put my name on something, how much influence is that really going to get me?
"And what's that worth when it's going to put my name out there in the press?"
Golf legend Jack Nicklaus endorses Trump for reelection, calls him "more diverse" than any president he's seen
BY CHRISTOPHER BRITO
OCTOBER 29, 2020 / 3:25 PM / CBS NEWS
Golf legend Jack Nicklaus said Wednesday that he voted for President Donald Trump, heaping praise on the commander chief while urging Americans to cast their ballots for the president.
The18-time major champion posted his endorsement on Twitter, saying Mr. Trump has been "more diverse than any President" he has seen and helped "people from all walks of life – equally."
"I have had the privilege over the last 3 1/2 years to get to know our current President a little more as his term has progressed," he wrote. "I have been very disappointed at what he's had to put up with from many directions, with that, I have seen a resolve and a determination to do the right thing for our country."
Nicklaus, who has long been friends and played golf with the president, said he's learned to look past some of Mr. Trump's controversial tweets and urged people to focus on what "he's tried to accomplish."
Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox
"This is not a personality contest; it's about patriotism, policies and the people they impact," he wrote. "His love for American and its citizens, and putting his country first, has come through loud and clear. How he has said it has not been important to me."
Celebrities who support Donald Trump for president37 PHOTOS
Last year the golfer, considered by many to be the best of all time, lobbied Mr. Trump to swing more government funding for his mobile children's hospitals project in Miami, Politico reported. According to the outlet, $20 million toward the hospital was included in the Department of Health and Human Services's 2020 budget proposal, with Mr. Trump's support.
Nicklaus has designed golf courses all around the world, including for some of Mr. Trump's properties. Nicklaus also voted for him in 2016.
BY CHRISTOPHER BRITO
OCTOBER 29, 2020 / 3:25 PM / CBS NEWS
Golf legend Jack Nicklaus said Wednesday that he voted for President Donald Trump, heaping praise on the commander chief while urging Americans to cast their ballots for the president.
The18-time major champion posted his endorsement on Twitter, saying Mr. Trump has been "more diverse than any President" he has seen and helped "people from all walks of life – equally."
"I have had the privilege over the last 3 1/2 years to get to know our current President a little more as his term has progressed," he wrote. "I have been very disappointed at what he's had to put up with from many directions, with that, I have seen a resolve and a determination to do the right thing for our country."
Nicklaus, who has long been friends and played golf with the president, said he's learned to look past some of Mr. Trump's controversial tweets and urged people to focus on what "he's tried to accomplish."
Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox
"This is not a personality contest; it's about patriotism, policies and the people they impact," he wrote. "His love for American and its citizens, and putting his country first, has come through loud and clear. How he has said it has not been important to me."
Celebrities who support Donald Trump for president37 PHOTOS
Last year the golfer, considered by many to be the best of all time, lobbied Mr. Trump to swing more government funding for his mobile children's hospitals project in Miami, Politico reported. According to the outlet, $20 million toward the hospital was included in the Department of Health and Human Services's 2020 budget proposal, with Mr. Trump's support.
Nicklaus has designed golf courses all around the world, including for some of Mr. Trump's properties. Nicklaus also voted for him in 2016.
Opinion: Jack Nicklaus' support of Donald Trump disappointing but not surprising
Jack Nicklaus full-throated Twitter endorsement of Donald Trump on Wednesday a reminder of how golf used to be, not where it is trying to go.
www.usatoday.com
Jay Cutler appears to support Trump's reelection bid
Jay Cutler, a former Pro Bowl quarterback who played for the Denver Broncos, Chicago Bears, and Miami Dolphins, appeared to endorse President Trump in his reelection campaign.
Jay Cutler appears to support Trump's reelection bid
Jay Cutler, a former Pro Bowl quarterback who played for the Denver Broncos, Chicago Bears, and Miami Dolphins, appeared to endorse President Trump in his reelection campaign.www.foxnews.com