Either way, the Schadenfreude here is the rapidly growing number of major organizations that refuse to have anything to do with Trump. It would be great if his disastrous presidency directly led to another one of those business accomplishments he’s so proud of: another bankruptcy.
Bravo from a nostalgic Boomer/
This needs to be clarified: It wasn’t Trump or his campaign that was directly scamming all those donors into making excessive donations. It was a private for-profit fund-raising web business, WinRed, that specializes in fund-raising for Republicans. They make their profit by taking a small cut of each donation.
None of the articles I saw mentioned (that I noticed) if Trump’s campaign had ever asked them to do that. But IIRC, WinRed was mentioned to have done this before. They have the incentive: It’s how they make more money.
But wait! It gets better! They also handed out all the millions in refunds that people asked for – BUT they don’t refund their cut of the action. No article that I saw mentioned who takes the loss for that – do the donors get less than their full money back? Or does the Trump campaign have to cover that?
ETA: The corresponding Democratic fund-raising outfit, ActBlue, is a non-profit so they don’t have the kind of incentive to scam like that.
From your linked article:
IOW, Trump officials admitted Trump lost the election, and accused their “enthusiastic supporters” of being sore losers who demanded a refund of their freely given donations because they were sore about losing.
^ 
And thanks, AH, for that NYT link.
Really - such a heart-warming bromide to inspire us all. Nothing like prepping up-and-comers with the importance of 
accountability, prudence, foresight, transparency, and fairness.
slightly switching gears…
My memory’s really shot, there: don’t know why I have a recollection of a post of yours, AH, stringing along some Trump fund-raising email flunkie who went to increasing lengths with flailing, desperate emails, beseeching their harrasees to fulill their donation obligations. Must’ve been someone else.
Was it [URL= How has Former President Trump pissed you off today? - #8456 by Monty]this[/URL] one, or [URL= NEW Stupid Republican Idea of the Day (Part 1) - #3852 by Ann_Hedonia]that[/URL] one?
Thanks! Pretty sure it was the first one, and wow the other one! Funky!
And when they do refund money (which all campaign donor orgs do) they also refund their cut.
I donated to Biden using them. They did have boxes for repeat donations, but they were well marked and unchecked by default.
I feel bad for some Trump donors - except for the ones who say they still love the Donald despite getting ripped off. They can get evicted dumped in the gutter and pissed on for all I care.
Here’s a good opportunity to employ the sad trumpet sound…WAH wah:
Huh. I figured Trump was giving him tips on how to hit on high school girls.
trump only likes pedophiles who don’t get caught.
Ding, ding. You’ve got it.
Here’s a nice little frisson of trump shadenfreude. I’m reminded of the Aesop’s Fable “The Dog and its Reflection”:
What the article is essentially saying is that if Trump had invested his assets in companies that were reasonably competently run instead of being run by himself and his imbecilic sons, the assets would have appreciated instead of ruinously plummeting like everything else he has ever managed. This should surprise no one.
It’s not a surprise, but it is a delight. And not just because ‘trump is doing badly financially because he is a bad businessman’ but because ‘trump did the wrong thing by not divesting his business assets when he became president, which was highly unethical if not illegal, and he suffered, not gained, as a consequence’.
I think it’s important, conceptually, to separate those two things. Trump is highly unethical and willing to at least push the boundaries of legality if not leap over them, that’s one thing. Trump and by extension apparently members of his family are incompetent at running businesses. That’s a second thing.
So on the schadenfreude front, we have to conclude that crime did not pay this time because the criminal was an incompetent boob, not just at being a criminal, but also at business and life in general. Maybe that’s a two-fer.
“He has done permanent damage to the Trump name and image, at least for two or three decades,” concludes real estate analyst Kevin Brown.
Gee, that’s tough.
Trump’s boycott of Coke didn’t last very long. Icky Stephen Miller posted a pic of him and the Orange One at Mar-A-Lago. Folks played a Hidden Object game and found a diet coke behind the telephone, blank sheets of paper, no pictures of his kids but 1 picture of Melania. No one could find Miller’s hair.
And a statue of Trump!
Here’s hoping this is the pebble that starts the avalanche of former Trumpers getting the smackdown for violating the Hatch Act. This is the HUD official who put together the video shown at the RNC without the knowledge or consent of those she interviewed.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/lynne-patton-rnc-video-hatch-act-violations