Hillary and protection money, er, campaign contributions

To be fair, we rail on O_T et al. for not reading any of the articles FB and the rest of us post before commenting on them.

We should probably give it a read. I know I did.

 

I'm not being a dick here. I asked you to prove your accusations. Unless you can point specifically to where it says, "other donors are putting in money for Hillary," I don't see your case. I read the article and saw no such indication that people were donating in place of others.

So, unless you actually have something, you should probably reserve your assumptions.

 

No, it is not, because churches don't ask rich people to give poor people money to put into the offering baskets in order to get tax deductions and avoid certain laws about giving to charity.

Further -- and considering the source it is not a surprise -- now that I completely blew your original point out of the water, which ahd nothing to do with tax deductions and was that you get more in return on your money for giving to political campaigns than you do churches -- and now that Old Tony exposed you as someone who didn't actually read the article and thus had no idea what he was talking about ---- you have tried to change your argument to make it as if what you really meant to say "well how is what she is doing different than what a church is doing because both are tax deductible" which is ridiculous on its own merits because if you don't know, I feel sorry for you.

Once again, I'll give you a pass because you're young and immature and still delusional enough to think you know it all and couldn't possibly learn something about this big wide world, but hopefully some day you'll realize how little you really do know and start opening your eyes and ears and shutting your mouth from time to time. It might do you some good.

 

It's not MY claim. It's in the story in the LA Times that all of you are trying so hard to ignore.

 

Tony, having done some work within a church before, I've seen some crazy shit. People give because people believe.

 

Yes, I would. I think politicians of all shapes, sizes and philosophies have sold us all down the river and for the most part are self-serving bastards that have conspired to destroy this country.

And that is why partisans from both sides drive me batty -- there ain't nothing you can accuse the other side of doing that your side ain't doing and probably ten times worse.

 

Right, because the campaign itself was unaware of the potential for problems:

 

Yes, but giving to the church isn't limited by laws. Giving to candidates is, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a room-temperature IQ that Hillary is shredding those laws. It was clear a few months ago in the Norman Hsu case and it's clear in this case.

 

Zag, I didn't respond to you because you "blew my argument out of the water." I also wasn't "exposed as someone that didn't read the article." See, neither is true.

I didn't respond to you because you are an inflammatory asshole. Instead of posting a response, you went quick to the sarcasm and then tried to argue a point that is true in your ind only. (See soup kitchens will NEVER equal Welfare and other programs like that. Thus politician > church.)

I am asking Tony a question which he is deliberately avoiding. He claims that the article says other people donated the money. I want to see where he received this information. If you have it, then be my guest and post it.

 

Actually, churches do abide by certain laws in order to maintain their tax exempt status. As such, donations to them must be heavily documented and information must be returned to the donator. However, this is not the point.

Where are the laws being broken?
Find the evidence and post it.

 

I'm not avoiding the question. You are avoiding reading the article. Hillary's campaign already had to return a boatload of money from the Hsu case this past summer for exactly the same things. Why can't they find so many of these people at the addresses listed? The neighbors have never heard of them. You may wish to remain ignorant. In fact, it's obvious that's your choice.

 

There are only two things that are important in politics. Money, and I can't remember what the second thing is.

Seriously, old_t, these are politicians doing what politicans do.

How is getting money from folks in poor neighborhoods -- or as what the story seems to want you to infer, getting money from people who pretend it's from folks in poor neighborhoods -- any worse than getting money from special interest groups or oil companies or their ilk who all expect something in return?

It's all a tawdry business.