keepthefaith Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 No, I wrote that wrong. Should be those giving donations should expect something in return. Doesn't always happen, but only a fool would think it doesn't have a role to play. It does and both parties do it. Some have taken this even a step further by taking donations to a private foundation in exchange for the same influence.
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 It does and both parties do it. Some have taken this even a step further by taking donations to a private foundation in exchange for the same influence. Both parties are bought and paid for.
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Bernie Sanders Meets the Clinton Smear Machine and He’s Furious Bernie Sanders has done plenty of favors for Hillary in this election cycle but instead of having his good will returned, he’s coming up against the Clinton smear machine. A rumor is circulating that Sanders supporters are planning to win the Iowa caucus by flooding it with college students from out of state. The rumor is nothing more than a delivery system for the smear which would give Clinton supporters an opportunity to taint a Sanders win in the state. Chuck Ross reported at The Daily Caller: Sanders Is Furious At David Brock, Hillary’s Loyal Servant And Spin Master Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ripped into David Brock, the head of the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC, Correct the Record, after being asked about rumors on Thursday that his campaign was planning to bus out-of-state students into Iowa to take part in Monday’s caucuses. Sanders let his questioner, Bloomberg Politics editor Al Hunt, have it as well. “The Clinton people say that they are, in places like Ames and Iowa City, that they are very worried that a number of out-of-state young people may try to show up to the caucus and they’re going to make a major effort to make sure that that’s not the case,” Hunt said to Sanders in an editorial meeting held Thursday. The newsman smirked and shrugged as he asked the question, but provided no evidence suggesting that the inquiry was based on anything more than rumor. “Really? Is that what they’re saying?” Sanders shot back, heatedly. “Based on what did they say that? Based on David Brock’s long history of honesty and integrity? The man who tried to destroy Anita Hill? Is this where this is coming from?” the 74-year-old bellowed.
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Bernie Sanders Meets the Clinton Smear Machine and Hes Furious Bernie Sanders has done plenty of favors for Hillary in this election cycle but instead of having his good will returned, hes coming up against the Clinton smear machine. A rumor is circulating that Sanders supporters are planning to win the Iowa caucus by flooding it with college students from out of state. The rumor is nothing more than a delivery system for the smear which would give Clinton supporters an opportunity to taint a Sanders win in the state. Chuck Ross reported at The Daily Caller: Sanders Is Furious At David Brock, Hillarys Loyal Servant And Spin Master Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ripped into David Brock, the head of the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC, Correct the Record, after being asked about rumors on Thursday that his campaign was planning to bus out-of-state students into Iowa to take part in Mondays caucuses. Sanders let his questioner, Bloomberg Politics editor Al Hunt, have it as well. The Clinton people say that they are, in places like Ames and Iowa City, that they are very worried that a number of out-of-state young people may try to show up to the caucus and theyre going to make a major effort to make sure that thats not the case, Hunt said to Sanders in an editorial meeting held Thursday. The newsman smirked and shrugged as he asked the question, but provided no evidence suggesting that the inquiry was based on anything more than rumor. Really? Is that what theyre saying? Sanders shot back, heatedly. Based on what did they say that? Based on David Brocks long history of honesty and integrity? The man who tried to destroy Anita Hill? Is this where this is coming from? the 74-year-old bellowed. Mr. Sanders, any truth to the rumor that you've stopped beating your wife?
reddogblitz Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Both parties are bought and paid for. The only difference between the 2 political parties is they are in a different set of pockets.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 The only difference between the 2 political parties is they are in a different set of pockets. Actually, that's not really true. They're both in the same pockets.
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Actually, that's not really true. They're both in the same pockets. Yup.
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers http://www.theonion.com/r/52261
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 No, I wrote that wrong. Should be those giving donations should expect something in return. Doesn't always happen, but only a fool would think it doesn't have a role to play. Of course you wrote it wrong. You do that often. It is a sign of carelessness on your part.
Chef Jim Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 What happens to campaign donations that are on deposit after an elected official retires from office? I've wondered about this for a long time.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 What happens to campaign donations that are on deposit after an elected official retires from office? http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/ According to the FEC, if a candidate for federal office (a presidential hopeful, say) loses and is a congressperson, he or she can roll over unused money into a re-election kitty. Thanks to this board's profanity filter, my brain reflexively read that last word as something else...
....lybob Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/ left out writing a book and then have campaign fund buying millions of said books and sending them out to donors, also left out employing most of the family in very well paid campaign jobs as long as funds hold out, also left out buying/renting a super luxury oversize RV for vacationing errrrrr "Campaigning".
Chef Jim Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 left out writing a book and then have campaign fund buying millions of said books and sending them out to donors, also left out employing most of the family in very well paid campaign jobs as long as funds hold out, also left out buying/renting a super luxury oversize RV for vacationing errrrrr "Campaigning". If there is one thing that will some day (I hope) bring left and right together is this ****.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 If there is one thing that will some day (I hope) bring left and right together is this ****. It should be the number one issue in terms of unity between the voters. The game is rigged, each side is bought and paid for by the same people and companies, and it's not those people or companies who are getting screwed. Their individual wealth and influence continues to rise while the people get shut out of the game. Whatever your political stripe or affiliation, the one truth in the American political system today is the people no longer have a voice or say in the process. The first amendment was crafted, by and large, because the Founders knew governments (of any kind) have unlimited resources when it comes to silencing free speech. History has shown this to be true time and time again, empire after empire. The first amendment was designed to keep the game level between the government and the people when it comes to speech. Equating speech with money, which it most assuredly is NOT (sorry Tasker, we will always disagree on that concept) has removed the voice of the public from all matters of governance and placed the power of influential speech in the hands of an ever shrinking class of elites. At this rate, we're only a few decades away from our democratic republic becoming an out-in-the-open oligarchy. We're already an oligarchy today, it's just politicians and commentators won't acknowledge it because the illusion of "every vote matters" still lingers in the hearts and minds of the older generations. But you're 100% correct, this should be a unifying issue across the political spectrum. If we don't unite soon, at least on fundamental issues like our constitutional rights to speech, privacy, and due process -- well, then we're pretty much fuked.
keepthefaith Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/ Interesting, thanks for posting. So the money ends up staying in a political pool somewhere or goes to charity. Except of course for some personal campaign related expenses. It should be the number one issue in terms of unity between the voters. The game is rigged, each side is bought and paid for by the same people and companies, and it's not those people or companies who are getting screwed. Their individual wealth and influence continues to rise while the people get shut out of the game. Whatever your political stripe or affiliation, the one truth in the American political system today is the people no longer have a voice or say in the process. The first amendment was crafted, by and large, because the Founders knew governments (of any kind) have unlimited resources when it comes to silencing free speech. History has shown this to be true time and time again, empire after empire. The first amendment was designed to keep the game level between the government and the people when it comes to speech. Equating speech with money, which it most assuredly is NOT (sorry Tasker, we will always disagree on that concept) has removed the voice of the public from all matters of governance and placed the power of influential speech in the hands of an ever shrinking class of elites. At this rate, we're only a few decades away from our democratic republic becoming an out-in-the-open oligarchy. We're already an oligarchy today, it's just politicians and commentators won't acknowledge it because the illusion of "every vote matters" still lingers in the hearts and minds of the older generations. But you're 100% correct, this should be a unifying issue across the political spectrum. If we don't unite soon, at least on fundamental issues like our constitutional rights to speech, privacy, and due process -- well, then we're pretty much fuked. Yes, it should be a unifying issue like term limits. In Illinois a movement last election to get term limits on the state ballot got more than enough required signatures but of course one party (guess which) filed a lawsuit and on some obscure loophole and a through a wacky judge it never made it onto the ballot.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 Both parties are bought and paid for. This might be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted
Chef Jim Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 This might be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted No it's actually the dumbest because he backs one of those parties blindly.
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 This might be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted
Recommended Posts