• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats, citing Russia, move to block foreign funding in 2020 election

Slyfox696 said:
No, I mean a bill to help keep foreign money out of elections. Are you aware of what thread you are in?
Click to expand...

You made the argument that it should be no problem to pass a law if the law is already on the books, just to make sure. The Democrats voted against a "born alive" bill just a few weeks ago using the argument that the laws are already on the books. Clearly you disagree wit the Democrats, then?

When you use a generic, dismissive excuse, expect to be challenged on exactly how strongly you hold to that principle. No surprise you don't really hold that principle at all.
 
jmotivator said:
You made the argument that it should be no problem to pass a law if the law is already on the books, just to make sure.
Click to expand...
No, I did not make that argument.

Try starting your post again, after first reading what I actually stated. That way you are less likely to post something stupid.
 
GDViking said:
Sure as hell does when it is given to you and you don't pay for it.

Does trump have a receipt for the services rendered???

Just as if fusion GPS had done all their research for Clinton a d turned it over to her as a gift would have been illegal.

However In trumps case it is even more incriminating as it is a hostile foreign government that assisted/fixed the election for trump.

And hacking and stealing emails and then coordinating their release ( proven by JRs emails).

One of these things is not like the other...

Hint, one is 100% legal opposition research, the other is illegal and very possibly treasonous...
Click to expand...

What dollar value does the law place on information that is given to a campaign?

There has to be a value placed on certain types and amounts of information so as to determine if a citizen of the republic has exceded his legal donation amount.
 
Somerville said:
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?
Click to expand...

Good, Democrats get no more billion dollar donations from Saudi Arabia
 
For those noting that we already have laws on the books about foreign money being banned from US politics, a few words from one of those 'libruls' some of you apparently hate.

Foreign Dark Money Is Threatening American Democracy

While foreign funding of campaigns is prohibited by federal statute, the body that enforces campaign finance laws – the Federal Election Commission (FEC) – lacks both teeth and resources. Sophisticated adversaries like Russia and China know how to bypass the ban on foreign funding by exploiting loopholes in the system and using layers of proxies to mask their activities, making it difficult for the FEC, the FBI, and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to follow the money.

One of the key loopholes is the ability of so-called super PACs to accept money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. And while super PACs are required to file financial disclosure reports, non-profit 501(c) organizations (for example, the National Rifle Association or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) are not. So if a foreign entity transfers money to a 501(c), that organization can in turn contribute funds to a super PAC without disclosing the foreign origin of the money.
Click to expand...
 
Casca XV said:
Good, Democrats get no more billion dollar donations from Saudi Arabia
Click to expand...

You're right. Now it's Donald and Jared raking in the Arab cash.

The Wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis Got a Friend in the White House

Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence

Trump and Kushner Put Saudi's Money First

Jamal Khashoggi’s death has exposed the White House and two of its most powerful figures as naive, ill-informed and craven. What comes next?

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Riyadh for a photo op with the prince. In a press release, he praised the Saudi leadership for “supporting a thorough, transparent and timely” investigation into the Khashoggi affair, a full two weeks after the dissident first went missing.

Pompeo also said that Saudi leaders denied any involvement in Khashoggi's disappearance, something his boss, President Donald Trump, let the world know on Twitter as well

trump saudi money.JPG

That statement would be easier to digest if Trump hadn't bragged publicly in the past about how much Saudis have spent buying his condominiums – and if he wasn't the steward of the most financially conflicted presidency of the post World War II era.

Trump is playing word games, of course. He says he has no investments in Saudi Arabia or Russia. But that doesn't mean money from those countries hasn't flowed into his coffers. In Saudi Arabia's case, that has meant very different things over the years.
Click to expand...
 
GDViking said:
Or anything of value, such as assistance in a presidential election, for that matter...
Click to expand...

Yeah. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton was not prosecuted from receiving aid from former British spies using anonymous Russian sources.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?
Click to expand...
Why do we need another bill IF it only repeats established law? Answer: we don't. As some one mentioned about the devil is in the details and this bill is a blatant attempt by Dems to alter the election process in a way that will favor them.
 
Obscurity said:
Why would Cocaine Mitch and his cabal of anti-democracy deviants not desire transparency? Why is the american system so ****ing convoluted?

I am expected to take responsibility. For what I buy, and whom I vote for.

Republicans would continue to disallow me access to crucial information, which enables me to make an informed decision, and truly understand who and what I am voting for.

I wonder why.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? What "crucial information" does this bill allow you that you don't already have?
 
Thoreau72 said:
It would be interesting to know if the proposed exclusion of foreign money, aimed at Russian influence, includes Israeli money and influence. Probably not.
Click to expand...

Israel qualifies as a foreign country and is therefore already prohibited.
 
Cant help but wonder if the dems desire for campaign finance reform extends to a certain Hungarian born globalist rat. Or Bloomberg. Or ALL of the top 10 contributors,6 of whom happen to contribute solely to democrats.
 
Bullseye said:
What are you talking about? What "crucial information" does this bill allow you that you don't already have?
Click to expand...

I want to know exactly who paid exactly what, who composes every PAC, and where every red cent a candidate takes comes from.

Folks like you want them to remain anonymous.

And, I say, immolate the rich.
 
Obscurity said:
I want to know exactly who paid exactly what, who composes every PAC, and where every red cent a candidate takes comes from.

Folks like you want them to remain anonymous.

And, I say, immolate the rich.
Click to expand...

What does "immolate the rich" even mean in this context?
Why should someone who gives $20 to a candidate be on a public record?
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Cant help but wonder if the dems desire for campaign finance reform extends to a certain Hungarian born globalist rat. Or Bloomberg. Or ALL of the top 10 contributors,6 of whom happen to contribute solely to democrats.
Click to expand...

Why would the Dems care about finance reform for American donors in a case involving FOREIGN contributions? However, there is a push for changing the ways in which national campaigns are funded but maybe you didn't know that because there has been little or no mention of it by your favored sources.

For those interested in where the money we know about is coming from:
 
Bullseye said:
Israel qualifies as a foreign country and is therefore already prohibited.
Click to expand...

And very skillfully like a fox, AIPAC evades the requirement.
 
Bullseye said:
Why do we need another bill IF it only repeats established law?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It creates provisions to support the existing law. Seriously, do NONE of you people actually read the topic to which you respond?

To put it in terms you would probably like, it is a law that American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. In order to ensure that only American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote, states require some form of identification. According to you, there's no reason to have a law for providing ID to vote, since it is already a law Americans over 18 can vote.

Is that how you feel? Are you recommending we remove ALL voting laws, with the exception of Americans over 18 can vote? Because when you realize why you are against removing all those voting laws, you will realize why you should support these provisions in this legislation (even if you do not support the overall legislation itself).
 
Somerville said:
Why would the Dems care about finance reform for American donors in a case involving FOREIGN contributions? However, there is a push for changing the ways in which national campaigns are funded but maybe you didn't know that because there has been little or no mention of it by your favored sources.

For those interested in where the money we know about is coming from:
Click to expand...
Wait...did you really just ask why democrats would care about rich donors-especially foreign born globalists-dumping money into campaigns? Isnt campaign finance reform and the influence of rich people one of the primary battle cries of idiot leftists everywhere? Or ios just the Koch brothers that triggers democrats?
 
Slyfox696 said:
It doesn't. It creates provisions to support the existing law. Seriously, do NONE of you people actually read the topic to which you respond?

To put it in terms you would probably like, it is a law that American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. In order to ensure that only American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote, states require some form of identification. According to you, there's no reason to have a law for providing ID to vote, since it is already a law Americans over 18 can vote.

Is that how you feel? Are you recommending we remove ALL voting laws, with the exception of Americans over 18 can vote? Because when you realize why you are against removing all those voting laws, you will realize why you should support these provisions in this legislation (even if you do not support the overall legislation itself).
Click to expand...

That isn't the case. The proposed law makes changes inn existing law. It doesn't simply provide enforcement--- how else do you suppose Cohen was convicted?
 
Slyfox696 said:
It doesn't. It creates provisions to support the existing law. Seriously, do NONE of you people actually read the topic to which you respond?[

To put it in terms you would probably like, it is a law that American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. In order to ensure that only American citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote, states require some form of identification. According to you, there's no reason to have a law for providing ID to vote, since it is already a law Americans over 18 can vote.

Is that how you feel? Are you recommending we remove ALL voting laws, with the exception of Americans over 18 can vote? Because when you realize why you are against removing all those voting laws, you will realize why you should support these provisions in this legislation (even if you do not support the overall legislation itself).
Click to expand...
You smug self-importance adds nothing to the conversation.
 
Obscurity said:
I want to know exactly who paid exactly what, who composes every PAC, and where every red cent a candidate takes comes from.

Folks like you want them to remain anonymous.

And, I say, immolate the rich.
Click to expand...
LOL, you have no idea what "folks like me" want or think. Immolate the rich and get your next job from the home guy sleeping in the alley behind the 7-11. :cool:
 
Athanasius68 said:
That isn't the case. The proposed law makes changes inn existing law.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it isn't redundant, like others are saying? Well, at least you're acknowledging that.

It doesn't simply provide enforcement
Click to expand...
It addresses shortcomings and fills the gaps where needed.
Bullseye said:
You smug self-importance adds nothing to the conversation.
Click to expand...
My factual posts correcting the falsehoods you were telling add way more to the thread than anything I've seen you post in this thread. It might be "smug", but it is accurate. Your posts completely fail the accuracy test.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?
Click to expand...
Why not make it a stsnd slone bill instead of trying to put other things in it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Slyfox696 said:
It addresses shortcomings and fills the gaps where needed.
Click to expand...

It makes it difficult to challenge incumbents, to advocate for a particular cause, and for neutral adjudication of alleged violations.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It makes it difficult to challenge incumbents
Click to expand...
If ensuring foreign money does not find its way into American elections means it is "difficult to challenge incumbents", then fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom