Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I don't know what her plan was.  She could have grifted for years with more tact.

This.  She's in a pretty decent cycle too - 2024 presidential turnout in a purple swing state and then 2030 would likely be a GOP presidential midterm.  

All she had to do was get some concessions in the bill, vote for it, and she'd be set up for 2024.  What a fucking dumbass. 

Edited by Js1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

maybe she's just a stupid, vapid cunt. 

A real possibility.  She clearly likes attention, so she kept doing things to garner more and it led her to doing some very stupid things.

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

maybe she's just a stupid, vapid cunt. 

while i am actively trying to eliminate gender based language from my negative vernacular, i cannot think of anything better than al swearengin. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

while i am actively trying to eliminate gender based language from my negative vernacular, i cannot think of anything better than al swearengin. 

 

why? I get it if people don't deserve it, but she deserves it. you know, gender equality and all.

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

why? I get it if people don't deserve it, but she deserves it. you know, gender equality and all.

 

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Cunt, dick, and asshole = applied by me to anyone regardless of gender 

it's just part of me trying to be a better person. there was a time i'd use "faggot" to drivers on the road as a pejorative. i eliminated that. now i'm working on this little project. 

i'm not going to get all moral authority on anyone else on it. it's strictly a personal choice i'm making.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

it's just part of me trying to be a better person. there was a time i'd use "faggot" to drivers on the road as a pejorative. i eliminated that. now i'm working on this little project. 

i'm not going to get all moral authority on anyone else on it. it's strictly a personal choice i'm making.

fair enough

Posted
On 10/14/2021 at 4:39 PM, kevwun said:

I don't know what her plan was.  She could have grifted for years with more tact.

 

she's a complete idiot. 100% the grift never ends if you play the game 'right' 

Posted
On 10/13/2021 at 9:53 PM, Bama Chick said:

giphy.gif
 

The notion that a United States Senator would travel to Europe, or anywhere outside the US, to raise campaign funds is just impossibly ludicrous.

This fucking timeline.

Posted
On 10/15/2021 at 7:49 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The notion that a United States Senator would travel to Europe, or anywhere outside the US, to raise campaign funds is just impossibly ludicrous.

This fucking timeline.

Isn't this kind of an issue?!?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, if you ask a normal person, sure. Legally? No. Citizen's United out front should have told ya. 

Honestly, I have been pretty un political until TFG.  So, I am not on top of all of that.  

That seems like a bad idea.  How can foreign corporations or entities be able to give money to US elected people?  Seems fucking dumb to me.  Seems like something that is rife for corruption.  

When I worked at EY or KPMG, I had to be independent in appearance as well as in fact.  It amazes me that as a CPA, I was held to higher standards that the elected people that run this country.  Fucking unreal.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Honestly, I have been pretty un political until TFG.  So, I am not on top of all of that.  

That seems like a bad idea.  How can foreign corporations or entities be able to give money to US elected people?  Seems fucking dumb to me.  Seems like something that is rife for corruption.  

When I worked at EY or KPMG, I had to be independent in appearance as well as in fact.  It amazes me that as a CPA, I was held to higher standards that the elected people that run this country.  Fucking unreal.

Well, common sense agrees. Conservative Supreme court says no. The general thrust of the rule is that corporations can give unlimited dollars because they have the same voting rights as citizens. However, because of Super Pacs, which don't have to report where they get money at all and other rules, well, guess what, everyone is donating. Because we're greedy fucks who are going to light democracy on fire and use 100 dollar bills as kindling. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

The general thrust of the rule is that corporations can give unlimited dollars because they have the same voting rights as citizens.

Pretty sure I have a limit on how much I can donate to a campaign. Oh well, nevertheless. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Pretty sure I have a limit on how much I can donate to a campaign. Oh well, nevertheless. 

Not through a super pac you do not. Only through a donation in your name. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Honestly, I have been pretty un political until TFG.  So, I am not on top of all of that.  

That seems like a bad idea.  How can foreign corporations or entities be able to give money to US elected people?  Seems fucking dumb to me.  Seems like something that is rife for corruption.  

When I worked at EY or KPMG, I had to be independent in appearance as well as in fact.  It amazes me that as a CPA, I was held to higher standards that the elected people that run this country.  Fucking unreal.

The GOP delegation that went to Moscow in 2018 supposedly went to meet with officials to warn them against meddling in US elections, but since Ron Johnson was with them you have to wonder if he was giving them lessons in campaign financing. Russia loves to troll though, July 4th was a great time to host them.

Posted

Like it or not, the Dems can only legislate as far left as Sinema and Manchin are both willing to go. The progressives have to accept that they're not going to get their way. If they want their agenda, then hit the campaign trail to flip 2 other Senate seats blue. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well, common sense agrees. Conservative Supreme court says no. The general thrust of the rule is that corporations can give unlimited dollars because they have the same voting rights as citizens. However, because of Super Pacs, which don't have to report where they get money at all and other rules, well, guess what, everyone is donating. Because we're greedy fucks who are going to light democracy on fire and use 100 dollar bills as kindling. 

 

Citizens United didn't touch the foreign election contribution prohibition.  It's still on the books and it's still illegal.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Citizens United didn't touch the foreign election contribution prohibition.  It's still on the books and it's still illegal.

Feel free to argue the merits of this article on the subject. I found it pretty convincing. Is it illegal? I guess. Does anyone police it? no. 

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/citizens-united-foreign-money-us-elections/

and this one:

https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Mystery-Money-Report-Tipsheet.pdf

Edited by SydneyCarton
Posted
22 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can PAC's receive foreign donations?

Probably.

But I don't believe an individual candidate can "fundraise" for a PAC that receives dark money.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably.

But I don't believe an individual candidate can "fundraise" for a PAC that receives dark money.

...wink wink, nod, right? Technically the speed limit in Texas freeways is 70 mph. But we all know we're cool at 75-80, don't we. You know what else I do sometimes? Jaywalk. 

I'm sure ole Kristyn is just talking about her viewpoints on things to big corporate donors at corporate companies, and I'm sure some advisor not technically on the staff of her campaign but maybe works for a PAC is happy to tell these folks where and how to donate. Maybe that one accepts dark money...

Edited by SydneyCarton
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably.

But I don't believe an individual candidate can "fundraise" for a PAC that receives dark money.

Yeah, but what are you going to do about it?  Investigate and subpoena them?  So what.  And it sounds like something the new congress will kill immediately, while conducting their own investigations.  Dems suck at messaging anyways and they're even worse at investigations.  In 5 years, not much has happened despite actual evidence.

Edited by Mdhorn
Posted
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably.

But I don't believe an individual candidate can "fundraise" for a PAC that receives dark money.

But they can do shit like this:

Quote

Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has cut a $30 million check to the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund, a massive cash infusion that top Republicans hope will alter the party's electoral outlook six months before Election Day.

The long-sought donation was sealed last week when, according to two senior Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan flew to Las Vegas to meet with the billionaire at his Venetian Hotel. Also at the meeting with Adelson was his wife, Miriam; Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition; Corry Bliss, who oversees the super PAC; and Jake Kastan, Ryan's No. 2 political aide. They laid out a case to Adelson about how crucial it is to protect the House.

As a federally elected official, Ryan is not permitted to solicit seven-figure political donations. When Ryan (R-Wis.) left the room, Coleman made the ask and secured the $30 million contribution.

It's comically easy to do this shit "legally." 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably.

But I don't believe an individual candidate can "fundraise" for a PAC that receives dark money.

make a black box LLC in delaware or wyoming, pump it full of foreign cash, fund a super pac with it w/in 20 days of an election, and it won't be until the next quarter filing that it's reported that FREEDOMEAGLEBONER PAC received $100 million from TotallyNotSaudiMoney, LLC, to spend on all those ads opposing Honest Dealer Rainbowfarts for senate while supporting Fuckwit Corrumpere Pollutioncancer, III, which isn't connected to him but is run by his best friend from Phi Upsilon Kappa, Faustian Daterapist Billowy Asshole, Esq.

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Zonahorn said:

Bye bitch

Sinema's brand value has plummeted.

She professed and demonstrated her lust for Empty Suit Senator Status. She is a grifter. She lied to voters so she could take care of her needs. That's poison in the dominant people-oriented campaign funding realm. 

The $27 micro-funding strategies work. That will doom her current trajectory.

She poisoned herself with the curtsy.

She loses Arizona if she is cast as the corporatist v. the people. She must know that. Or maybe not. Perhaps she has a great awakening. Clock is ticking on her political future. 

I think she is toast, but I suppose she could do something and be granted atonement by the people of Arizona. I don't think she's smart enough to figure it out - and she likes the attention. Toxic narcissism in overdrive the past year. 

Pharma and her other Patrons should, if they have not already, disown her tactics or risk brand degradation. 

Just an opinion.

Gallego hits the right notes to protect that seat. Sinema can't win it.

Arizona Democrats have made tremendous gains. Let's hold them. 

Edited by washparkhorn
sp.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Meh, don't care.

Do care that she agreed on the minimum corporate tax for the reconciliation bill.  About fucking time. 

Posted
On 10/21/2021 at 3:41 PM, wildcat09 said:

Coleman made the ask

So we’ve advanced from making “ask” also a noun, to ceasing yo use it as a verb?  A lot of shit has gone on in the past 20 months but this is the worst. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...