Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Suhweetusername t1_j6wxzeb wrote

So, that amount was spent over 32 visits to the restaurant. Thats like $800/visit on average. Depending on the size of the party size and food and drinks ordered, it doesn’t seem crazy.

30

slayer370 t1_j6xhhij wrote

Wait why didnt he say he owns the place and not pay?

11

Paintingmyfreedom t1_j6z447w wrote

Just that 8 meals came exactly to 199.99. Below the $200 reporting limit.

Totally not crazy. I mean it’s not like we have any reasons to not trust the man’s word on things

8

Suhweetusername t1_j72an9m wrote

It’s not a reporting limit, because it was obviously reported by the campaign. It’s a limit for keeping receipts, but by all means, investigate and see what the deal is. The restaurants and hotels should have invoices/charges for the past year.

2

brownredgreen t1_j6xph9n wrote

It's super suspicious that his bill just always happened to be below the legal requirement for a receipt.

Almost like he was trying to hide something.

Your defense of him makes me suspicious of you.

Is your name Anthony by any chance?

7

GKrollin t1_j6y7kjl wrote

Where does it say that?

−1

brownredgreen t1_j6y9e13 wrote

Dig into the expense report.

0

GKrollin t1_j6ya543 wrote

What expense report?

0

drawnverybadly t1_j6xogw2 wrote

Downright frugal if he was ordering bottles of wine

1

Paintingmyfreedom t1_j6z4ljp wrote

Well 8 different trips came to exactly $199.99. Just below the reporting limit of $200.

You ever hear of that bridge for sale? I can get you deal for it for 199.99.

Just kidding I don’t think your stupid. Just that you put political party above facts, decency, and our democratic system

3

drawnverybadly t1_j6zgvlw wrote

Only friends of Bucco's get his $199.99 deal, with all you can eat bread sticks, you would be an idiot to not get it!

2

Paintingmyfreedom t1_j6zivzi wrote

Based on the rumors of this guy. I’m sure his friends appreciate that price point

2

IndyMLVC t1_j6x13hh wrote

This is the most important comment and it's buried.

−6

brownredgreen t1_j6xpih9 wrote

No, it is not.

6

IndyMLVC t1_j6xrw9z wrote

How so?

−4

brownredgreen t1_j6xsfij wrote

It is not important.

In fact, its a poor attempt at defending Santos, when he is CLEARLY a shady, lying fuckhead.

The $199.99 amount is FAR more important to understand than the total amount spent.

Yes, lots of food for lots of people can add up to big numbers.

No, $199.99 charges REPEATEDLY are not a coincidence.

4

IndyMLVC t1_j6xsit3 wrote

I never said he wasn't an asshole. I never said he wasn't a liar. Context, however, is important

−2

brownredgreen t1_j6xst05 wrote

The comment provided no context, merely an asinine theory that ignores the most damning part of the evidence against him: the precise dollar amount paid.

4

IndyMLVC t1_j6xt7cr wrote

If OP's info is inaccurate, ok. I didn't read the article.

I have zero faith in our government or that Republicans will ever be held to any sort of standard.

−1