publiusvarus wrote:
They just benefited from the fraud, how convienent.
I think I see where this is going. You benefit from car accidents, so clearly you must be responsible for them.
Someone arrest this man!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Feds charge Obama Clinton with campaign fraud
Feds charge Obama Clinton with campaign fraudFollow
I think I see where this is going. You benefit from car accidents, so clearly you must be responsible for them.
Someone arrest this man!
Samira wrote:
If it can be proven that that money was fraudulently obtained, sure.
Well the guy's basically flat broke - his entire estate was obtained fraudulently, including the money he apparently donated. Not sure how much proof is necessary there. Are we to assume that the $25,000 he donated here and there to Obama / Clinton was some how magically of his own earnings? I'm not saying Obama or Clinton or any other beneficiary of his donations is at fault, but meh.. it's an unnecessary shadow of doubt that could easily be cast off.
publiusvarus wrote:
Ambrya,
They just benefited from the fraud, how convienent.
They just benefited from the fraud, how convienent.
I'm gonna tip-toe on the edge of Godwins here...
You benefit everyday from the scientific advances that originated with the *****. Shall we haul you to Nuremberg in shackles, or will you turn yourself in?
I agree that the system is corrupt. There's way too much slush money floating around, and way too many people disavowing any knowledge of where it came from or what it's purportedly buying.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
More like you accept stolen money from big donors without requiring them to show where they obtained the money. You were close though.
Wait, you mean my analogy wasn't identical to the original situation?
I don't know how to handle this shocking development. Hold me.
Samira wrote:
I agree that the system is corrupt. There's way too much slush money floating around, and way too many people disavowing any knowledge of where it came from or what it's purportedly buying.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
Normally, I wouldn't either. But the promise of a clean, honest, transparent government begins to fade the moment a known primary donation source is proven to be fraudulent and the recipients of those donations ignore it or sweep it under the umbrella of ignorance or plausible deniability.
I know little about this case other than what's in the article, and I'm not proposing a call to action. I'm just saying that simply dismissing it as unfortunate seems shady in its own right. Couldn't Obama have someone investigate how much money was donated to his cause by this man and offer to pay it back or.. even better.. pass it on to some charity? Seems like a hell of a chance at some good PR and an opportunity to shut some pubbies up in the process.
Again, I'm not suggesting he do so. I'm just pondering the options.
BrownDuck wrote:
Well the guy's basically flat broke...
That's nothing out of the ordinary.
Quote:
Couldn't Obama have someone investigate how much money was donated to his cause by this man and offer to pay it back or.. even better.. pass it on to some charity?
Sure, I suppose so, and that might happen. However at this point it would be done with federal funds, which might bring up another round of accusations.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I believe you're addressing that remark to the wrong person.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
I believe you're addressing that remark to the wrong person.
He is, and he completely missed the point as well. No surprise there.
Samira wrote:
I agree that the system is corrupt. There's way too much slush money floating around, and way too many people disavowing any knowledge of where it came from or what it's purportedly buying.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
However, I differ in that I don't hold individual candidates responsible for the corrupt system.
And it's a good thing, too, else we'd have Ross Perot and Mike Bloomberg in the White House.
Well, I wouldn't mind Bloomberg...
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,
More like you accept stolen money from big donors without requiring them to show where they obtained the money. You were close though.
Quote:
I think I see where this is going. You benefit from car accidents, so clearly you must be responsible for them.
More like you accept stolen money from big donors without requiring them to show where they obtained the money. You were close though.
CBD is running a campaign?
Edit: your brain must be like a pinball machine on multi-ball mode.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2009 6:59pm by trickybeck
trickybeck wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,
More like you accept stolen money from big donors without requiring them to show where they obtained the money. You were close though.
Quote:
I think I see where this is going. You benefit from car accidents, so clearly you must be responsible for them.
More like you accept stolen money from big donors without requiring them to show where they obtained the money. You were close though.
CBD is running a campaign?
Edit: your brain must be like a pinball machine on multi-ball mode.
w/ tilt.
he's trying, but the flippers just ain't flippin'.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Couldn't Obama have someone investigate how much money was donated to his cause by this man and offer to pay it back or.. even better.. pass it on to some charity?
Sure, I suppose so, and that might happen. However at this point it would be done with federal funds, which might bring up another round of accusations.
Honestly, I think this is the wrong way to look at the issue in the first place. It's not like this one guy "donated" a bunch of money to Dem campaigns. He was a fund raiser for them. There's a closer degree of connection there. It's the difference between "Hey. This guy wrote us a check for our election fund(s)", and "This guy is working on our behalf to get other people to write checks for our election fund(s)".
It's hard to place any direct connection on the candidates themselves, but you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected. Kind of a secondary point, but still somewhat relevant.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to place any direct connection on the candidates themselves, but you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected. Kind of a secondary point, but still somewhat relevant.
No, not relevant at all.
If we were having this same conversation about McCain and I took your position right now, you'd be sputtering about how wrong I am.
CBD wrote:
No, not relevant at all.
If we were having this same conversation about McCain and I took your position right now, you'd be sputtering about how wrong I am.
If we were having this same conversation about McCain and I took your position right now, you'd be sputtering about how wrong I am.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
CBD wrote:
No, not relevant at all.
If we were having this same conversation about McCain and I took your position right now, you'd be sputtering about how wrong I am.
If we were having this same conversation about McCain and I took your position right now, you'd be sputtering about how wrong I am.
That wasn't the point being contended.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2009 8:35pm by trickybeck
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to place any direct connection on the candidates themselves, but you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected. Kind of a secondary point, but still somewhat relevant.
Right. So when we see that white supremacists want a GOP candidate elected, we can say that it's "somewhat relevant" that that sort of group supports the GOP.
Fair enough.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to place any direct connection on the candidates themselves, but you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected. Kind of a secondary point, but still somewhat relevant.
Right. So when we see that white supremacists want a GOP candidate elected, we can say that it's "somewhat relevant" that that sort of group supports the GOP.
If the candidate hires a white supremacist group as a fund raising organization for themselves, you'd have a point.
Did you just miss the whole "There's a difference between someone who donates to a campaign and someone who fund raises for a campaign"?
Quote:
Fair enough.
Yes. Perfectly fair. When you can find an example of that happening, feel free to get back to me...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sorry, but...
...doesn't really exclude "but who weren't hired!"
Backpedal harder. Right now, you're just spinning your wheels.
Quote:
you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected
...doesn't really exclude "but who weren't hired!"
Backpedal harder. Right now, you're just spinning your wheels.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sorry, but...
...doesn't really exclude "but who weren't hired!"
Quote:
you can certainly make the point about what kind of person/organization wants to get them elected
...doesn't really exclude "but who weren't hired!"
/shrug
I worded that poorly. Been kinda in a rush lately due to impending business trip.
The context of the post should have made it clear that I was making a distinction between people who want someone elected and donate their own money, and people who work directly for the campaign to collect donations to help them get elected.
Quote:
Backpedal harder. Right now, you're just spinning your wheels.
I love how I can very very clearly make a point, but then in one sentence, not include the additional "but who weren't hired", and you leap instantly to that one sentence while ignoring the entire rest of the post.
Thats selective reading on your part Joph. Sheesh!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I love how I can very very clearly make a point, but then in one sentence, not include the additional "but who weren't hired", and you leap instantly to that one sentence while ignoring the entire rest of the post.
How's the view up on that cross?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 284
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Feds charge Obama Clinton with campaign fraud
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC