Obama's Switcheroo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

There's a greater potential for abuse when the regulatory body isn't functioning.

[Dan J 277]

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

There's a greater potential for abuse when the regulatory body isn't functioning.

Even with regulatory body in place there is no way they are likely going to be able to verify every donation.

But there are quite a network of jounalists and other people that will scour through the records on thier own to look for dirt on an opponent. And there will probably be some people within the campaigns looking for any donations that might become news and taking care of them before they do.

This system has been open to abuse for along time, other than making it slightly easier, the internet doesnt really change anything. Unless we force candidates to stop accepting private donations all together, all we can do is enforce greater transperency and make sure all donations are disclosed.

Our public financing system is pretty much dependent on who which candidates get more private fundraising anyway. No third party candidate will get public funds.

[GaryC 7]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

All I can say to that is:

You have a lot to learn young man!

Attack me when you can't respond?

That wasn't an attack, it was an observation on your lack of understanding. There really isn't much I can say in response. You obviously trust Obama even though there is no proof that he is trustworthy (or untrustworthy I might add). You faith in disclosures and the idea that "someone will find it" just shows that you don't know political history. But don't worry, youthful idealism will be replaced by seasoned cynicism soon enough.

[Dan J 277]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

All I can say to that is:

You have a lot to learn young man!

Attack me when you can't respond?

That wasn't an attack, it was an observation on your lack of understanding. There really isn't much I can say in response. You obviously trust Obama even though there is no proof that he is trustworthy (or untrustworthy I might add). You faith in disclosures and the idea that "someone will find it" just shows that you don't know political history. But don't worry, youthful idealism will be replaced by seasoned cynicism soon enough.

Your understanding is of a previous generation. All you have to do is look at how reporting and analysis of the candidates has changed. Information is much more readily available than it was even 10 years ago.

But of course, you wont offer any solution of your own, just critisize other people.

[GaryC 7]

Your understanding is of a previous generation. All you have to do is look at how reporting and analysis of the candidates has changed. Information is much more readily available than it was even 10 years ago.

But of course, you wont offer any solution of your own, just critisize other people.

You don't understand Dan. This isn't a criticism or a put down. After a while you will realize that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am afraid that your in for a real let down when you realize that EVERYONE in Washington is crooked to some degree. And even though there is more information available there is a corresponding increase in the ways to get around that increased information. This isn't something I can convince you of through telling you. It's a hard lesson you will learn on your own as you mature politically. Just remember the saying, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama isn't immune to it. I now understand the koolaid slogan that the Clintonites use. You have stars in your eyes over Obama. Get ready for a let down.

Edited April 12, 2008 by GaryC

[Dan J 277]

Your understanding is of a previous generation. All you have to do is look at how reporting and analysis of the candidates has changed. Information is much more readily available than it was even 10 years ago.

But of course, you wont offer any solution of your own, just critisize other people.

You don't understand Dan. This isn't a criticism or a put down. After a while you will realize that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am afraid that your in for a real let down when you realize that EVERYONE in Washington is crooked to some degree. And even though there is more information available there is a corresponding increase in the ways to get around that increased information. This isn't something I can convince you of through telling you. It's a hard lesson you will learn on your own as you mature politically. Just remember the saying, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama isn't immune to it. I now understand the koolaid slogan that the Clintonites use. You have stars in your eyes over Obama. Get ready for a let down.

Only problem for your stereotype, I'm not the diehard Obama supporter you make me out to be. Of course, thats not something I can convice you of either.

[GaryC 7]

Your understanding is of a previous generation. All you have to do is look at how reporting and analysis of the candidates has changed. Information is much more readily available than it was even 10 years ago.

But of course, you wont offer any solution of your own, just critisize other people.

You don't understand Dan. This isn't a criticism or a put down. After a while you will realize that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am afraid that your in for a real let down when you realize that EVERYONE in Washington is crooked to some degree. And even though there is more information available there is a corresponding increase in the ways to get around that increased information. This isn't something I can convince you of through telling you. It's a hard lesson you will learn on your own as you mature politically. Just remember the saying, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama isn't immune to it. I now understand the koolaid slogan that the Clintonites use. You have stars in your eyes over Obama. Get ready for a let down.

Only problem for your stereotype, I'm not the diehard Obama supporter you make me out to be. Of course, thats not something I can convice you of either.

I'm just saying that internet donations are subject to fraud just as any other form of donation. And because of the volume of donations the chance of fraud goes up by a like amount. And since it is a new way of gathering donations there are few safeguards built in. The idea that some web site lists all donations over $200 is just laughable. It just lists the ones they want you to know about and in the form they want you to believe. It is by no means a real safeguard against fraud. Keep that in mind.

I don't care who you support, just keep your eyes open about it or your in for a real disappointment.

[Dan J 277]

Your understanding is of a previous generation. All you have to do is look at how reporting and analysis of the candidates has changed. Information is much more readily available than it was even 10 years ago.

But of course, you wont offer any solution of your own, just critisize other people.

You don't understand Dan. This isn't a criticism or a put down. After a while you will realize that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am afraid that your in for a real let down when you realize that EVERYONE in Washington is crooked to some degree. And even though there is more information available there is a corresponding increase in the ways to get around that increased information. This isn't something I can convince you of through telling you. It's a hard lesson you will learn on your own as you mature politically. Just remember the saying, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama isn't immune to it. I now understand the koolaid slogan that the Clintonites use. You have stars in your eyes over Obama. Get ready for a let down.

Only problem for your stereotype, I'm not the diehard Obama supporter you make me out to be. Of course, thats not something I can convice you of either.

I'm just saying that internet donations are subject to fraud just as any other form of donation. And because of the volume of donations the chance of fraud goes up by a like amount. And since it is a new way of gathering donations there are few safeguards built in. The idea that some web site lists all donations over $200 is just laughable. It just lists the ones they want you to know about and in the form they want you to believe. It is by no means a real safeguard against fraud. Keep that in mind.

I don't care who you support, just keep your eyes open about it or your in for a real disappointment.

Your misunderstanding my point. I know we can't catch all fraud. You can't prove that a donation from another family member was real or paid for by someone else in the family. My point is with a little bit of work, or by using datamining. You will be able to catch significant cases of fraud, like the Hsu case. But you would just rather let it be and complain (or be cynical) about it.

I don't care who gets elected president. I wont be disappointed as Republicans will have little power this time around. If McCain plays lame duck Bush and vetos everything the Democrats propose, he will go down as the President who accomplished nothing.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Watch it Gary, Platy will report you for spammin! Against his boy! You have limited free speech.

Edited April 12, 2008 by CarolsMarc

[Charuhans 0]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

So what are we saying here: McCain's a bit scared of not being able to keep up with the fund raising?

We are saying that both made a promise and Barak is breaking it.

McCain knows that he can't outraise Obama. That's a good bit of motivation for him to push the issue.

What about keeping a promise? I guess that isn't an issue for you then. I guess it wouldn't be an issue if he continued to not keep promises once elected either.

Good Point Gary!! Seems all those Obama fanatics who condem HRC for wanting to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates because she "promised and agreed" not to before, have the air taken out of their bubbleheads

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Watch it Gary, Platy will report you for spammin! Against his boy! You have limited free speech.

Be sure to let me know if I can help out with that little problem of yours

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seems all those Obama fanatics who condem HRC for wanting to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates because she "promised and agreed" not to before, have the air taken out of their bubbleheads

I'll give you some time to try and figure it out.

[Charuhans 0]

Seems all those Obama fanatics who condem HRC for wanting to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates because she "promised and agreed" not to before, have the air taken out of their bubbleheads

I'll give you some time to try and figure it out.

Oh Yeah! Well, since you have already figured it out, guess its time for you to go back to your koolaid. Good Luck

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seems all those Obama fanatics who condem HRC for wanting to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates because she "promised and agreed" not to before, have the air taken out of their bubbleheads

I'll give you some time to try and figure it out.

Oh Yeah! Well, since you have already figured it out, guess its time for you to go back to your koolaid. Good Luck

That's all you really have, eh? Kool-Aid? That's your whole case. Pretty weak.

[Dan J 277]

Seems all those Obama fanatics who condem HRC for wanting to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates because she "promised and agreed" not to before, have the air taken out of their bubbleheads

I'll give you some time to try and figure it out.

Oh Yeah! Well, since you have already figured it out, guess its time for you to go back to your koolaid. Good Luck

Yes infrahumanisation is always a good way to repond when you can't.