Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 2

[Sithborg]

Yeah, tell that to ol' Beuraguard Sessions.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah, tell that to ol' Beuraguard Sessions.

Or the thousands of black men in jail for marijuana.

 

[chaseter]

Uh oh
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

 

[souvlaki]

Uh oh
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

Stopped reading at “The press continues to feed the dying Russian collusion conspiracy theory” in literally the opening sentence.

 

[Lighthouse]

The Federalist? Really?

 

[chaseter]

Stopped reading at “The press continues to feed the dying Russian collusion conspiracy theory” in literally the opening sentence.

There’s nothing in the Russia investigation or Stormy Daniels wouldn’t have taken priority if the press knew it was a definite indictment.

May be nothing here but we shall see...

 

[chaseter]

The Federalist? Really?

Examiner and Post covered it but Federalist was top google story. Left wing outlets aren’t going to cover it just like right wing outlets aren’t covering Russia or Stormy. Welcome to the news.

 

[Erzengel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...butions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9407e0ff1430

This was reported back in December.

 

[chaseter]

The Federalist wasn’t lying when they said no one was covering that story...didn’t find out about it until today. Pee tapes are more important than money laundering allegations.

 

[Sithborg]

You are aware that similar charges are made against Trump, right?

 

[moviedoors]

You are aware that similar charges are made against Trump, right?

Whataboutism isn’t a good look for any side.

 

[Deck Rickard]

The Federalist wasn’t lying when they said no one was covering that story...didn’t find out about it until today. Pee tapes are more important than money laundering allegations.

Yeah, because there aren't any indications that Trump and his cronies have ever been involved in money laundering, huh?

Oh wait...

http://time.com/5109253/trump-organization-money-laundering-russians-russia/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...inked-to-laundering-trafficking-idUSKCN1GD5B4


But hey, anything to point the finger at Hillary, right? Gotta keep the corrupt, racist con artist/rapist/traitor you voted for in power at all costs! Because pissing off Democrats is the most important thing in the world, right?

 

[chaseter]

You are aware that similar charges are made against Trump, right?

Is this the Trump thread? Does that excuse Hillary?

 

[Deck Rickard]

Is this the Trump thread? Does that excuse Hillary?

Hey, you never hesitate to throw shade at the democrats every time you pop into the Trump thread.

 

[chaseter]

Hey, you never hesitate to throw shade at the democrats every time you pop into the Trump thread.

Join date 5 months ago huh?

 

[SV Fan]

Uh oh
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

You do realize the place that filed this complaint is a Pro Trump Super PAC(The Committee to Defend the President (CDP)). Why exactly would "The Committee to Defend the President" want this investigated? hmmmmm

It makes me laugh when Conservative get their panties wet whenever an investigation somebody on "their side" initiated happens as if it has some relevance(as if this is the "real story" the lame stream media is refusing to cover, queue fake outrage)

"The press continues to feed the dying Russian collusion conspiracy theory"

Guess that answers my question above

 

[MaceB]

Haha, the Federalist! Conservative tabloid trash... or conservative entertainment, whatever you like. Why exactly are we considering fake news worthy of our conversation?

 

[MaceB]

In case anyone wants a non-crazy bus version.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...butions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c32ccbb9be96

"The story starts in 2012, when Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon sued over FEC regulations that limited how much money donors could give to parties and candidate, in total, in any campaign cycle. McCutcheon’s case made it to the Supreme Court in 2013, where defenders of the FEC limits failed to convince the court’s conservative bloc that lifting the limit would allow candidates to blow past their own donation limits by routing more money through state parties.

“How realistic is that?” asked Justice Samuel Alito during oral arguments. “How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they’re all going to transfer it to one candidate?”

In the end, it was very realistic. "

Conservatives want to open the door to unlimited, anonymous corporate spending.. but the second that State DNC folks pool their money together.. oh now it's a big freakout. Pardon me, but if money in politics is your complaint, then there are much more prominent, important, and appropriate places to aim that anger, instead of Hillary Clinton.

 

[chaseter]

Deflection is a helluva drug.

 

[MaceB]

It's not deflection. The Federalist is a conservative tabloid, and the ability to do this started with a supreme court decision.

 

[chaseter]

I never said The Federalist was esteemed journalism. It’s literally the top hit on google, or was earlier. The reason behind an acurrate point is irrelevant. That story was buried in the media. Did you know anything about it? Is it not important?

Blaming equal Democrat actions on Conservatives is deflection (and vice versa). That seems to be the running excuse in here.

 

[MaceB]

No, if your one and only source is conservative tabloid garbage, then you don't bring it up because nothing in there can be trusted. I brought up a Washington Post article as a retort, which gives warrants for why and how this happened.
The reason behind the action is hugely relevant. When the supreme court gives its okay, then it's okay. The conservative justices want more unfettered, anonymous money in politics. I'm sorry that it upsets you that that decision cuts both ways.

 

[SV Fan]

I never said The Federalist was esteemed journalism. It’s literally the top hit on google, or was earlier. The reason behind an acurrate point is irrelevant. That story was buried in the media. Did you know anything about it? Is it not important?

Blaming equal Democrat actions on Conservatives is deflection (and vice versa). That seems to be the running excuse in here.

I go back to my point above why exactly is the Pro Trump Super PAC fighting this thing? This just feels like one of the right wing divert the attention from our Problems(which the Federalist article seem to make quite clear in it's first statement).

In terms of is this important, if the Clinton campaign did something wrong and get charged then yes it is but till then this is just a frivolous lawsuit from a group that has a political agenda and should be treated as such

Now if anybody wanted to report this story legitimately, the story is Pro Trump Super PAC launches lawsuit against Clinton and DNC over FEC Violations(yet I don't see anything pointing to that in the right wing world, the lead gets buried in the story)

 

[chaseter]

No, if your one and only source is conservative tabloid garbage, then you don't bring it up because nothing in there can be trusted. I brought up a Washington Post article as a retort, which gives warrants for why and how this happened.
The reason behind the action is hugely relevant. When the supreme court gives its okay, then it's okay. The conservative justices want more unfettered, anonymous money in politics. I'm sorry that it upsets you that that decision cuts both ways.

You realize the Post article backs that an investigation is warranted. Political motivations behind shedding light on illicit activities are irrelevant...that doesn’t make the issue at hand a non issue. Yes the Republicans are just as guilty (they both are always guilty) but this isn’t the Republican thread and deflections as such make it seem like you are complacent with these actions.

 

[MaceB]

You realize the Post article backs that an investigation is warranted. Political motivations behind shedding light on illicit activities are irrelevant...that doesn’t make the issue at hand a non issue. Yes the Republicans are just as guilty (they both are always guilty) but this isn’t the Republican thread and deflections as such make it seem like you are complacent with these actions.

Haha, okay. I never talked about the political motivations. I brought up the quote from the Washington Post article that stated how the Supreme Court ruled on this, with Alito saying that it should be allowed because such a tactic would be unlikely. As the article points out, that was incredibly naive.

Here's another quote, which demonstrates what I'm talking about.
"The “conspiracy,” however, may have simply taken advantage of new loopholes in campaign finance law — loopholes expanded after a Supreme Court victory by the lawyer who filed the new complaint."

Of course an investigation is warranted. If someone lodges an FEC complaint, you investigate. No problem with that.

You seem to be angry that Democrats are taking advantage of the same legal loopholes that Republicans are. I can appreciate that. However, there is only one side that is arguing in favor of taking away those loopholes. You're suggesting that we should fall on the sword in protest, and not take advantage of the legal opportunities that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court has afforded us. That we should have a political protest and not take such opportunities even though our political opponents do and our political opponents have made it legally possible to do so.

Hey, I'm in favor of campaign finance reform and super PAC reform and all of that. Get money out of politics. But I'm sorry, I'm not willing to sit aside and do a silent protest while our opponents run the table. You can think that's hypocritical I guess... but I don't see it that way. I'm not willing to let one side have lopsided power and control because I wasn't willing to fight fire with fire. This is an issue for the courts, and until the courts get their crap together, then we've got to do everything we can legally to win back control. As soon as the courts rule in our favor, I'll be more than happy to side with you and say, "yes, let's get out all money from politics, and the Dems who disagree should be voted out." I'm all for it.

But did Hillary do anything illegal? I guess we'll see, but like it's already been said... just because a Trump super PAC or Trump supporter makes an allegation, that doesn't make it news.