Susan Collins example of how government is bought

sikofit · 2018-10-10T01:35:30.827Z

armycowboy:

This has really been one of the most unintentionally hilarious threads in the history of Hannityland.

Indeed it has

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-10-10T01:35:54.331Z

Of course it has to do with what we’re talking about.

As you said before, you don’t have a problem with individuals choosing to donate money for or against any candidate. That’s what happened here.

Plasmaball · 2018-10-10T01:36:09.904Z

No ■■■■■■■■■■ not the point…you are whining about something that has been going on for centuries

sikofit · 2018-10-10T01:39:55.632Z

Plasmaball:

No ■■■■■■■■■■ not the point…you are whining about something that has been going on for centuries

Yeah but this time it’s working against a politician he likes so it’s no longer fair

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:42:26.681Z

No it isn’t. Nobody but yourself even suggested that force was being used to acquire the donations and again, these donations are not earmarked for a candidate, no candidate or candidates have even been named.

This was nothing but a blatant attempt to force a senator to vote as directed and when she didn’t the money will be used in an attempt to unseat her.

He put millions of dollars together to use as a bludgeon against her.

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:42:51.433Z

If it wasn’t the point why did you write it?

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:43:15.214Z

You can’t show that my opinion has changed in any way so don’t pretend otherwise.

Plasmaball · 2018-10-10T01:44:52.863Z

Oh I know…its just so dumb…

Plasmaball · 2018-10-10T01:45:17.860Z

You understand what a parallel is right?

There you go

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-10-10T01:47:04.823Z

WildRose:

No it isn’t. Nobody but yourself even suggested that force was being used to acquire the donations and again, these donations are not earmarked for a candidate, no candidate or candidates have even been named.

These donations are most certainly earmarked for a candidate - they’re ear-marked for whoever ends up as the nominee against her.

That money cannot be spent on anything else.

WildRose:

This was nothing but a blatant attempt to force a senator to vote as directed and when she didn’t the money will be used in an attempt to unseat her.

Yep. It’s still not illegal.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will donate to his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want hin to, that’s not breaking the law.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will tell all my friends to donate to his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want him to, that’s not against the law.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will start a website to collect donations for his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want him to, that’s still not against the law.

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:47:39.779Z

I understand you continue digging the same hole deeper and deeper with every post.

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:48:45.042Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

WildRose:

No it isn’t. Nobody but yourself even suggested that force was being used to acquire the donations and again, these donations are not earmarked for a candidate, no candidate or candidates have even been named.

These donations are most certainly earmarked for a candidate - they’re ear-marked for whoever ends up as the nominee against her.

That money cannot be spent on anything else.

WildRose:

This was nothing but a blatant attempt to force a senator to vote as directed and when she didn’t the money will be used in an attempt to unseat her.

Yep. It’s still not illegal.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will donate to his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want hin to, that’s not breaking the law.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will tell all my friends to donate to his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want him to, that’s not against the law.

If I call my Senator and tell him that I will start a website to collect donations for his opponent if he doesn’t vote the way I want him to, that’s still not against the law.

There is no candidate to earmark them for.

One more time and I’m really getting tired of repeating it, we’re not talking about what you as an individual do with your vote or your donations.

armycowboy · 2018-10-10T01:50:25.241Z

This is where you get parsed to death. To some people, “winning” an argument on a low volume political forum is paramount.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-10-10T01:50:33.041Z

WildRose:

There is no candidate to earmark them for.

It doesn’t matter, they’re still legally earmarked.

WildRose:

One more time and I’m really getting tired of repeating it, we’re not talking about what you as an individual do with your vote or your donations.

No, that is what we’re talking about. You’re trying to pretend that it’s not.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-10-10T01:51:35.463Z

The law is all about parsing. It’s good practice.

Although normally lawyers know when to quit when they’re behind.

WildRose · 2018-10-10T01:52:03.861Z

No, that’s the red herring you keep dragging about as a diversion.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-10-10T01:53:49.217Z

WildRose:

No, that’s the red herring you keep dragging about as a diversion.

Its not a red herring, it’s the entire basis of campaign finance law.

You are desperately trying to make up reasons why this is “different”. Its not.

sikofit · 2018-10-10T01:54:38.742Z

WildRose:

One more time and I’m really getting tired of repeating it, we’re not talking about what you as an individual do with your vote or your donations.

What does being an individual have to do with it? You said they were threatening a public official and if that were true it would be illegal no matter if it were a group or an individual.

WildRose:

Threatening a public official.

Plasmaball · 2018-10-10T01:55:15.746Z

So a punt…cool beans

IBC · 2018-10-10T02:01:23.669Z

Indeed. Makes you question how serious it is, or of it’s just for fun.