Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Funneling taxpayer dollars to husbands firm

It's clear your trying to smear her. This seems like the ethical thing to do

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Funneling taxpayer dollars to husbands firm


Why, what a shock!

Campaign financing in the US is designed to encourage this despicable behaviour.

I remember watching an investigative documentary on it and one thing really stuck in my mind.

A candidate can loan their own campaign money from a business they own at extortionate interest rates and then the responsibility of repayment of that loan is then lumped onto the taxpayer.

And that's one of the minor issues with it.

If you want to make a start on overhauling the system there's only one place to start....and by place I mean person.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Campaign financing in the US is designed to encourage this despicable behaviour.

I remember watching an investigative documentary on it and one thing really stuck in my mind.

A candidate can loan their own campaign money from a business they own at extortionate interest rates and then the responsibility of repayment of that loan is then lumped onto the taxpayer.

And that's one of the minor issues with it.

If you want to make a start on overhauling the system there's only one place to start....and by place I mean person. Bet Donnie did that, will be interesting to see his tax returns.

Ah, of course. It's all on Trump to fix it, as usual lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ah, of course. It's all on Trump to fix it, as usual lol. He is the biggest "Fixer"

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Bet Donnie did that, will be interesting to see his tax returns.

He's using campaign funds for his own businesses:

Donations poured in from more than 50,000 people across the country. But according to the latest federal filings, Trump still has not donated a penny of his own, while his businesses continued to charge the campaign for hotels, food, rent and legal consulting. That means the richest president in American history has turned $1.1 million from donors across the country into revenue for himself. -snip



Also remember this is the guy who claims he's "self funding" his campaign, while bragging about how much more money he's raised than the other side...

Should be noted that was from December of 2018, but I'd be surprised if anything has changed.

ORANGE MAN BAD!


This thread is not about Trump, dummy.

Fair enough there, star. Feel free to ignore the story.

.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's using campaign funds for his own businesses:

Donations poured in from more than 50,000 people across the country. But according to the latest federal filings, Trump still has not donated a penny of his own, while his businesses continued to charge the campaign for hotels, food, rent and legal consulting. That means the richest president in American history has turned $1.1 million from donors across the country into revenue for himself. -snip



Also remember this is the guy who claims he's "self funding" his campaign, while bragging about how much more money he's raised than the other side...

Should be noted that was from December of 2018, but I'd be surprised if anything has changed. Knew it.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Campaign financing in the US is designed to encourage this despicable behaviour.

I remember watching an investigative documentary on it and one thing really stuck in my mind.

A candidate can loan their own campaign money from a business they own at extortionate interest rates and then the responsibility of repayment of that loan is then lumped onto the taxpayer.

And that's one of the minor issues with it.

If you want to make a start on overhauling the system there's only one place to start....and by place I mean person.


It's why I keep pushing the Anti-Corruption Act and run the Tulsa Oklahoma Chapter. WEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's why I keep pushing the Anti-Corruption Act and run the Tulsa Oklahoma Chapter. WEEEE!

Well focus on Mitch. He's the one preventing change.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well focus on Mitch. He's the one preventing change.

It's looking more like the democrats are going to have the senate and the house in 2020.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's looking more like the democrats are going to have the senate and the house in 2020.

I've said this in late 2017, I definitely said it in 2018 after those elections. I was insulted over these claims.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well focus on Mitch. He's the one preventing change.

Our efforts have been blocked by Democrats and Republicans across multiple states.

Corruption is an overwhelmingly bipartisan issue in the US.



Do you think even a majority of incumbent Democrats would be okay with full transparency on campaign financing? Term limits? Rank choice voting? Based on our efforts, sometimes, Democrats are the biggest opponents to the ACA.


Edit - I don't think anyone on KMC disagrees with the major points on the ACA. In fact, a comfortable majority of Americans want most of the content in the ACA. It's a pretty big deal here in the US. If you find me a person who doesn't want term limits, I'll show you that it's either a politician or a family member's politician.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've said this in late 2017, I definitely said it in 2018 after those elections. I was insulted over these claims.

Democrats in the 2018 election held the narrative of Russiagate and that helped their stories in addition to that it was the most expensive midterm election to date, Democrats spents hundreds of millions of dollars. Pfftt I undersold that, 5.7 billion dollars spent on the midterm elections, disgusting.

Our system of election and $$ is disgusting.

Russiagate seems to be one of those things that helped the Democrats and also hurt the Democrats by making them look foolish.

Similar to how the "MSM Media lies!" both are destroying Trump's election chances and also helping him because people see through it, depending on the narrative needed pushed that day.

No disagreement on the money in politics issue being disgusting. That shit needs an overhaul.

Originally posted by Robtard
Russiagate seems to be one of those things that helped the Democrats and also hurt the Democrats by making them look foolish.

Similar to how the "MSM Media lies!" both are destroying Trump's election chances and also helping him because people see through it, depending on the narrative needed pushed that day.

No disagreement on the money in politics issue being disgusting. That shit needs an overhaul.

That goes to show not only how messed up our system is but how much those positions are worth.

For instance on topic here, Ohmars is becoming a millionaire on the public dole. Twenty years ago the wealthiest counties were distributed around the USA many in california now the wealthiest counties are all surrounding washington dc.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's looking more like the democrats are going to have the senate and the house in 2020. if they have the President too Ameriva can really take steps forward. Let's hope!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Our efforts have been blocked by Democrats and Republicans across multiple states.

Corruption is an overwhelmingly bipartisan issue in the US.



Do you think even a majority of incumbent Democrats would be okay with full transparency on campaign financing? Term limits? Rank choice voting? Based on our efforts, sometimes, Democrats are the biggest opponents to the ACA.


Edit - I don't think anyone on KMC disagrees with the major points on the ACA. In fact, a comfortable majority of Americans want most of the content in the ACA. It's a pretty big deal here in the US. If you find me a person who doesn't want term limits, I'll show you that it's either a politician or a family member's politician.

Aye the donations one I mentioned was a black democrat woman. Don't remember her name though. I just remember her being confronted by the journalist as she walking to her office. Don't recall if she was senate or Congress so can't find the clip of it.

Looking it up I think it might've been Corrine Brown.

Rob stop derailing the topic into TDS.

There is another thread for that.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Looking it up I think it might've been Corrine Brown.

I'll look into her name.

Edit - She was found guilty from a "barely concealed" charity fraud scam.

She just needed to learn how to do charity fraud a bit better. Then she could have gotten away with it like money political "charities."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-us-congresswoman-corrine-brown-guilty-fraud-scheme-involving-bogus-non-profit

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Bet Donnie did that, will be interesting to see his tax returns.


Will he hilarious when his returns show nothing but charities to widows and orphans and lgbtq and blm, and the only reason he kept hidden was modesty.

Originally posted by cdtm
Will he hilarious when his returns show nothing but charities to widows and orphans and lgbtq and blm, and the only reason he kept hidden was modesty.

https://i.imgur.com/OzHX4fG.gif



Modest? Trump?


He probably has inexplicable donations to Russian Charities called:

Ольга Благотворительность за Мочу

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll look into her name.

Edit - She was found guilty from a "barely concealed" charity fraud scam.

She just needed to learn how to do charity fraud a bit better. Then she could have gotten away with it like money political "charities."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-us-congresswoman-corrine-brown-guilty-fraud-scheme-involving-bogus-non-profit
She also had campaign loan shenanigans

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/07/brown-under-indictment-loans-campaign-50-k-despite-low-net-worth-104345

It's pretty awful that you can type a representative's name into Google followed by "corruption scandal" and a huge number of them have investigations and/or criminal convictions for fraud/campaign finance scandals etc.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Bet Donnie did that, will be interesting to see his tax returns.

but truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump

I'm still curious why they think Obama's IRS missed so much illegality from trump.

I'm sure there is some way to blame republicans for it though.

Broly and Surt stop derailing the topic into ODS.

There are 30+ older threads threads for that. Broly created most of them

Shut up Robtard

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm still curious why they think Obama's IRS missed so much illegality from trump.

I'm sure there is some way to blame republicans for it though.

I don't think it's because they believe illegal tax evasion is involved

There's plenty of legal tax avoidance measures. They just speak to character and sense of civic duty.

Something someone running for office should exhibit.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I don't think it's because they believe illegal tax evasion is involved

There's plenty of legal tax avoidance measures. They just speak to character and sense of civic duty.

Something someone running for office should exhibit.

Okay so if character, etc. is needed to run for office then how can any dem justify a biden vote?

Originally posted by Robtard
Broly and Surt stop derailing the topic into ODS.

There are 30+ older threads threads for that. Broly created most of them

This ain't it chief, not after all the threads you and yours have derailed.

Funny how Rob completed deflected to Trump because he has no substantive retort on topic

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Funny how Rob completed deflected to Trump because he has no substantive retort on topic

And he talked about thread derailments too, it's his trolling. It's painfully obvious.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Shut up Robtard Originally posted by Surtur
And he talked about thread derailments too, it's his trolling. It's painfully obvious.

Try and stick to the topic. Ilhan Omar.

Okay Rob do you think she is corrupt at all?

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so if character, etc. is needed to run for office then how can any dem justify a biden vote?

That's a much broader topic.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That's a much broader topic.

We both know it will all boil down to "he's not trump tho".

And probably from some of the same people who criticized those who cast an anti-hillary vote with trump as opposed to a pro trump vote.

Does Biden release his tax statements?

I'd check but I can't be ****ing ****ed, frankly.

Releasing tax statements isn't the only way to show character.

For instance, I'm told racism is a bad character trait.

And his civic duty fell short with the 1994 crime bill that wreaked havoc on the black community

but hey yeah he probably did release his taxes, good for him

Yes. That's why I said it was a much broader topic. Being a mass murderer who pays your taxes doesn't make you have good character.

In regards to Trump I don't even think it's because he's trying to hide legal tax avoidance. I think it's because he's worth far less than he wants people to think.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Does Biden release his tax statements?

I'd check but I can't be ****ing ****ed, frankly.

Google says he did: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/joe-biden-releases-tax-returns-during-2020-democratic-primary.html

Now watch for the goalpost move.

Goalposts didn't move, I never cared about tax releases.

Was talking about character.

To be fair, even if biden is racist he probably forgets he is racist all the time.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay Rob do you think she is corrupt at all?

U probably didn't see this Rob.

I didn't, so thanks for the recap.

Says: Federal Election Commission records released Tuesday afternoon show that Omar's campaign funneled $228,384.93 last quarter to the E Street Group, a D.C.-based consulting firm run by the congresswoman's husband, Tim Mynett. The payments, predominantly for digital and fundraising services, bring the total that Omar's campaign has sent to Mynett's firm to just over $1 million for the 2020 cycle. -snip


Is that illegal though? I don't know. Does sound shady AF, but it could be within the political campaign finance rules, which wouldn't surprise me as who makes the rules. The politicians.

I mean, not all corrupt moves are illegal.

No doubt some feel Trump is corrupt for his commutation of Stone...

So, is that a yes you feel she is corrupt?

Again, I don't know if this is illegal. It does look shady AF and someone should look into it, if it is, she needs to be removed from office and charges brought up. If it isn't illegal, our laws need to change on this.

Apples to oranges comparison. Trump pardoned a guy who was caught lying for Trump's own gain and was found guilty. Trump didn't do anything illegal, but he abused the power of the POTUS. Even Republicans agree here.

Also, you bringing up Trump here considering the other thread, Lolz.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't, so thanks for the recap.

Says: Federal Election Commission records released Tuesday afternoon show that Omar's campaign funneled $228,384.93 last quarter to the E Street Group, a D.C.-based consulting firm run by the congresswoman's husband, Tim Mynett. The payments, predominantly for digital and fundraising services, bring the total that Omar's campaign has sent to Mynett's firm to just over $1 million for the 2020 cycle. -snip


Is that illegal though? I don't know. Does sound shady AF, but it could be within the political campaign finance rules, which wouldn't surprise me as who makes the rules. The politicians.


ding ding, correct answer.



You can fully play within the system and do completely unethical or morally reprehensible things. This is why many are asking for the corruption reform.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I don't know if this is illegal. It does look shady AF and someone should look into it, if it is, she needs to be removed from office and charges brought up. If it isn't illegal, our laws need to change on this.

Apples to oranges comparison. Trump pardoned a guy who was caught lying for Trump's own gain and was found guilty. Trump didn't do anything illegal, but he abused the power of the POTUS. Even Republicans agree here.

Also, you bringing up Trump here considering the other thread, Lolz.

Yes or no is she corrupt, don't make me ask you again

Originally posted by dadudemon
ding ding, correct answer.



You can fully play within the system and do completely unethical or morally reprehensible things. This is why many are asking for the corruption reform.

Regardless, she's lost my vote as it looks shady AF, even if not illegal.

is shady AF the exact same as corrupt to you? I just want to be clear, I know how u guys struggle with words and definitions

i swear we need school house rock again

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes or no is she corrupt, don't make me ask you again

I gave you an answer, directly related to your question, you simply chose to ignore it. Not every thing is 'black-and-white' and answered with just a yes or no.

Sorry, but I will not be playing your silly "gotcha!" trolling games.

Here, let me show you how silly you are: Do your parents know you suck off guys in the alley? Yes or No.

Originally posted by Robtard
I gave you an answer, directly related to your question, you simply chose to ignore it. Not every thing is 'black-and-white' and answered with just a yes or no.

Sorry, but I will not be playing your silly "gotcha!" trolling games.

Here, let me show you how silly you are: Do your parents know you suck off guys in the alley? Yes or No.

So yes you feel she is corrupt. Okay. Nice.

rF3zSKMZBOc&t

If you only care about corruption by those you view as your political enemies then you don't actually care about political corruption. You care about political point scoring.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you only care about corruption by those you view as your political enemies then you don't actually care about political corruption. You care about political point scoring.

I feel like it would be so damn tiring to care about political corruption, it happens so damn often from every side.

I just was curious if they felt Ilhan was corrupt.

That's true. Picking your battles would help. Start with your own representative if they're corrupt.

I do it with mine. He's a "socialist" who lives in a castle miles away from the constituency he represents.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That's true. Picking your battles would help. Start with your own representative if they're corrupt.

I do it with mine. He's a "socialist" who lives in a castle miles away from the constituency he represents.

But if people were to start with their own reps they could never ever talk about others

it's all corrupt lol

I never said that

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That's true. Picking your battles would help. Start with your own representative if they're corrupt.

I do it with mine. He's a "socialist" who lives in a castle miles away from the constituency he represents.

Which ******* is this?

hard to argue trump should release his taxes while that delaware college blocks the release of biden documents

and no they aren't blocking tax documents, but they are blocking transparency...which is the entire argument behind releasing the tax docs

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Campaign financing in the US is designed to encourage this despicable behaviour.

I remember watching an investigative documentary on it and one thing really stuck in my mind.

A candidate can loan their own campaign money from a business they own at extortionate interest rates and then the responsibility of repayment of that loan is then lumped onto the taxpayer.

And that's one of the minor issues with it.

If you want to make a start on overhauling the system there's only one place to start....and by place I mean person.

Ohmar?

Originally posted by Robtard
He's using campaign funds for his own businesses:

Donations poured in from more than 50,000 people across the country. But according to the latest federal filings, Trump still has not donated a penny of his own, while his businesses continued to charge the campaign for hotels, food, rent and legal consulting. That means the richest president in American history has turned $1.1 million from donors across the country into revenue for himself. -snip



Also remember this is the guy who claims he's "self funding" his campaign, while bragging about how much more money he's raised than the other side...

Should be noted that was from December of 2018, but I'd be surprised if anything has changed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Try and stick to the topic. Ilhan Omar.

Originally posted by Surtur
But if people were to start with their own reps they could never ever talk about others

it's all corrupt lol

Why not? Your representative might be a member of the party you support.

You may support the party's policies and vote for their presidential nominee but refrain from voting for your state or district candidates cos you think or know they're corrupt.


I may be making a colossally dumb assumption about US ballot papers and that if you vote for a Democrat president that you automatically vote democrat as your state senator.

If someone can also enlighten me on the issue that was reported of people going to electronic voting machines and only being able to press the candidate for the party they were registered as.

Over here you just register to vote. You don't register an allegiance to a party

We also don't vote for a prime minister.

edit: Explains it better: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference/

What happens if you select no party affiliation?

Voting in Presidential Primary Elections

Voters who registered to vote without stating a political party preference are known as No Party Preference (NPP) voters. ... For presidential primary elections: NPP voters will receive a “non-partisan” ballot that does not include presidential candidates.

That's for California, other states vary

It's different state by state, for example in Missouri I can vote anyway I want for any party as long as I simply register to vote.

I could vote green party councilman , democrat state senate, republican gov. States are given a certain amount of autonomy on how the setup their voting system.

Realistically it would be better if all the states followed Missouri style voting, pick up rank choice (we dont have that yet) and fixed gerrymandering (mo is working on that as well with an indepenant group.)

Originally posted by Robtard
edit: Explains it better: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-preference/

What happens if you select no party affiliation?

Voting in Presidential Primary Elections

Voters who registered to vote without stating a political party preference are known as No Party Preference (NPP) voters. ... For presidential primary elections: NPP voters will receive a “non-partisan” ballot that does not include presidential candidates.

That's for California, other states vary

That reads like nobody would be on the ballot. Isn't everyone on a presidential primary a presidential candidate?

I mean it's different over here. There aren't primary elections. When it comes to electing who would be a prime minister they would be elected as party leader only by party members. Same applies to opposition parties. Their leader is elected by party members then they can become prime minister in the general election.

So Boris Johnson and Theresa May both became prime minister before they won a general election because their party won the previous election and the leader resigned during their term (David Cameron resigned because he campaigned to remain in the EU and lost so May took over and Boris took over cos May resigned because she couldn't get the Brexit deal through parliament)

See now that I'm writing it down our system seems just as bonkers.

Maybe more so given we have elections at 4 different levels of government (local councils, devolved parliaments, UK parliament (Westminster) and the European parliament (although not anymore) and they all have different voting formats.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That reads like nobody would be on the ballot. Isn't everyone on a presidential primary a presidential candidate?

I mean it's different over here. There aren't primary elections. When it comes to electing who would be a prime minister they would be elected as party leader only by party members. Same applies to opposition parties. Their leader is elected by party members then they can become prime minister in the general election.

So Boris Johnson and Theresa May both became prime minister before they won a general election because their party won the previous election and the leader resigned during their term (David Cameron resigned because he campaigned to remain in the EU and lost so May took over and Boris took over cos May resigned because she couldn't get the Brexit deal through parliament)

See now that I'm writing it down our system seems just as bonkers.

Maybe more so given we have elections at 4 different levels of government (local councils, devolved parliaments, UK parliament (Westminster) and the European parliament (although not anymore) and they all have different voting formats.

In the primary, if you want to vote for a certain candidate, you have to register in their party. eg If you wanted to vote for Yang to win the nomination, you have to register as Democrat. I believe it's to keep counter-voters out. But it still sounds lame.

In the general election, you can vote from whomever regardless of your party.

Yeah, there's some serious shit-rules. I registered Democrat so I could vote for Sanders. Will be going back to Independant next year.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's different state by state, for example in Missouri I can vote anyway I want for any party as long as I simply register to vote.

I could vote green party councilman , democrat state senate, republican gov. States are given a certain amount of autonomy on how the setup their voting system.

Realistically it would be better if all the states followed Missouri style voting, pick up rank choice (we dont have that yet) and fixed gerrymandering (mo is working on that as well with an indepenant group.)

That seems more sensible and far less susceptible to corruption.

In the UK, once you're registered to vote that should be you set to vote for life. You shouldn't have to register for every election and you have to write to the electoral roll to have yourself removed if you so wish (it helps some people to avoid debt collection agencies as it makes them harder to trace. Helps stop spam mail as private companies can pay for copies of the electoral roll. Helps abused spouses hide from abusive partners because private individuals can pay for a copy etc)

Anyway, I digress.

In the run up to every election a lot of people find themselves mysteriously removed from the electoral register and the excuse is that it's always administrative errors. Strange that it only ever happens in large numbers in areas who traditionally vote against the current government.

Now in a system where every voter's preference is pre registered how easy would it be to remove voters of only one political persuasion?

Seems rife for corruption to me. Not to mention massively undemocratic. Imagine registering to vote for a party and being unable to change your mind between registering and actually voting.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the primary, if you want to vote for a certain candidate, you have to register in their party. eg If you wanted to vote for Yang to win the nomination, you have to register as Democrat. I believe it's to keep counter-voters out. But it still sounds lame.

In the general election, you can vote from whomever regardless of your party.

Yeah, there's some serious shit-rules. I registered Democrat so I could vote for Sanders. Will be going back to Independant next year.

Hmmm. Seems better now you've explained it that way.

Say I registered as a republican in 2016 to vote in the primaries. Could I then register as a Democrat in 2020 to vote in those primaries?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That seems more sensible and far less susceptible to corruption.

In the UK, once you're registered to vote that should be you set to vote for life. You shouldn't have to register for every election and you have to write to the electoral roll to have yourself removed if you so wish (it helps some people to avoid debt collection agencies as it makes them harder to trace. Helps stop spam mail as private companies can pay for copies of the electoral roll. Helps abused spouses hide from abusive partners because private individuals can pay for a copy etc)

Anyway, I digress.

In the run up to every election a lot of people find themselves mysteriously removed from the electoral register and the excuse is that it's always administrative errors. Strange that it only ever happens in large numbers in areas who traditionally vote against the current government.

Now in a system where every voter's preference is pre registered how easy would it be to remove voters of only one political persuasion?

Seems rife for corruption to me. Not to mention massively undemocratic. Imagine registering to vote for a party and being unable to change your mind between registering and actually voting.

I would love to see them take party affiliation off the docket as well, know the candidate and their policies, don't just vote party lines.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I would love to see them take party affiliation off the docket as well, know the candidate and their policies, don't just vote party lines.

We have a website here called VoteForPolicies that has different categories like economic, environmental, justice, society etc and they give you a brief description of a published policy (usually from a party's manifesto) without naming the party. You then pick all the ones you agree with. At the end you then pick from the shortlisted ones you picked in round one.

Once you've gone through the shortlisting and the final best suited policy you get a pie chart showing what % of policies you picked by party.

It's good but it's not fool proof because if you have a reasonable knowledge of the party's pledges you can usually figure out which party the policy belongs.

It's good for swing voters though. It can help them make up their minds.

It's also more useful than things like Political Compass during elections because it pertains to actual policy commitments rather than more broad values

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Hmmm. Seems better now you've explained it that way.

Say I registered as a republican in 2016 to vote in the primaries. Could I then register as a Democrat in 2020 to vote in those primaries?

Yes, you can change your party affiliation every year if you like when you register to vote.

Glad we are back on topic.

So Rob what do you think about her corruption?