#46 President Joe Biden
Comments
-
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.0 -
first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770
0 -
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth0 -
Right but this is campaign finance, not personal net worth from what I can tell.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....0 -
mrussel1 said:
Right but this is campaign finance, not personal net worth from what I can tell.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....
the "other data" tab
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I see it. Looks to be in line with the SEC report. Shows two other sources of income and a relatively low net worth. My guess is that she is there for one term, establishes contacts adn relationships on the Hill and then becomes a lobbyist, using her ties. That's probably her long game to make money. It's about after her time in the senate.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Right but this is campaign finance, not personal net worth from what I can tell.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....
the "other data" tab0 -
mrussel1 said:
I see it. Looks to be in line with the SEC report. Shows two other sources of income and a relatively low net worth. My guess is that she is there for one term, establishes contacts adn relationships on the Hill and then becomes a lobbyist, using her ties. That's probably her long game to make money. It's about after her time in the senate.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Right but this is campaign finance, not personal net worth from what I can tell.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....
the "other data" tabnot so sure, if the politico piece is accurate in its assesment and the opinions of those interviewed.I could see her trying to give mitch a run for his money in her own way...._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Well she is setting herself up for a primary loss if she keeps playing it this way. That's why I think she might just be there to build the relationships for after she leaves.. She won't get wealthy as a senator, only as an ex senator. There is a two year cooling off period where you can't lobby, but that's easy to get through. She would make 3x + as a lobbyist.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
I see it. Looks to be in line with the SEC report. Shows two other sources of income and a relatively low net worth. My guess is that she is there for one term, establishes contacts adn relationships on the Hill and then becomes a lobbyist, using her ties. That's probably her long game to make money. It's about after her time in the senate.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Right but this is campaign finance, not personal net worth from what I can tell.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
That is paywall. Here is her official financial disclosure from May. She reported extra income of 23k from an adjunct teaching gig and then something from a winery for $1100. Her total assets are still rather small.mickeyrat said:first site from a search titled "sinema financial disclosures" includes links to her staff too...click on a name and it brings up linked reports by year/filing....
https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Sinema/Kyrsten/429aa5eb-0b1f-470b-a5ee-10eaf7f43770ok. And I guess open secrets caught up.....
the "other data" tabnot so sure, if the politico piece is accurate in its assesment and the opinions of those interviewed.I could see her trying to give mitch a run for his money in her own way....0 -
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealthBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth0 -
k, i'll try again. you said "they don't need the $174". if that's the case, why would $85K influence them in any way? why would certain senators vote certain ways that make no sense for their constituents if that amount is truly the real amount?mrussel1 said:
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
If I have $200 in my wallet consistently, my work shelling out for a $2 coffee isn't going to make me a company man.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I don't know what the $85k is, but let's take Mitch as an example. He was up for re-election in 2020. He raised $65MM for his re-election committee. That meant he could overwhelm any opponent on TV, internet, FB, wherever. Now the people who gave him the $65MM did it for a reason. They want something back in the form of legislation or blocking legislation. Mitch doesn't need $174K, but he sure as hell doesn't want to throw down millions of his personal money in a campaign either.HughFreakingDillon said:
k, i'll try again. you said "they don't need the $174". if that's the case, why would $85K influence them in any way? why would certain senators vote certain ways that make no sense for their constituents if that amount is truly the real amount?mrussel1 said:
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
If I have $200 in my wallet consistently, my work shelling out for a $2 coffee isn't going to make me a company man.0 -
the $85K was just an estimate of single contribution by any given individual based on the figures I was looking at on that website.mrussel1 said:
I don't know what the $85k is, but let's take Mitch as an example. He was up for re-election in 2020. He raised $65MM for his re-election committee. That meant he could overwhelm any opponent on TV, internet, FB, wherever. Now the people who gave him the $65MM did it for a reason. They want something back in the form of legislation or blocking legislation. Mitch doesn't need $174K, but he sure as hell doesn't want to throw down millions of his personal money in a campaign either.HughFreakingDillon said:
k, i'll try again. you said "they don't need the $174". if that's the case, why would $85K influence them in any way? why would certain senators vote certain ways that make no sense for their constituents if that amount is truly the real amount?mrussel1 said:
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
If I have $200 in my wallet consistently, my work shelling out for a $2 coffee isn't going to make me a company man.
my point is, yes, of course he doesn't want to shell out $65M of his own cash, but if each individual contribution is kept to a legal amount that is lower than what he could himself afford, why would that buy his influence? His top contributor was $164 thousand. If his salary of $174 thousand is a mere pittance, why would $164 weigh him on voting on any issues? that's all I mean. of course the total of the contributions he gets is an insane amount. But my point is why would he be swayed on any one issue by any one contributor if that is TRULY the sum they contributed to the campaign?
*I'll admit to my potential ignorance on this issue, I'm going on my limited knowledge and what I've read, so I'd understand if there's some major component I'm missing here. It just looks to me on paper that this stuff doesn't add up, figuratively and literally*By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Let's not forget that Moscow Mitchy Baby has nothing to show here:mrussel1 said:
I don't know what the $85k is, but let's take Mitch as an example. He was up for re-election in 2020. He raised $65MM for his re-election committee. That meant he could overwhelm any opponent on TV, internet, FB, wherever. Now the people who gave him the $65MM did it for a reason. They want something back in the form of legislation or blocking legislation. Mitch doesn't need $174K, but he sure as hell doesn't want to throw down millions of his personal money in a campaign either.HughFreakingDillon said:
k, i'll try again. you said "they don't need the $174". if that's the case, why would $85K influence them in any way? why would certain senators vote certain ways that make no sense for their constituents if that amount is truly the real amount?mrussel1 said:
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
If I have $200 in my wallet consistently, my work shelling out for a $2 coffee isn't going to make me a company man.Who is Len Blavatnik and how much did he donate to McConnell?Blavatnik emigrated to the United States with his family in the late 1970s and returned to Russia in the late ’80s as the Soviet Union began to collapse. His U.S.-based holding companies — Access Industries Inc. and AI-Altep Holdings Inc. — are conduits for his largest political contributions, according to Federal Election Commission records.
In 2015-16, Blavatnik’s contributions went to GOP PACs and top Republican leaders, including McConnell, according to FEC records.
In that cycle, his companies contributed over $6.3 million, with $2.5 million going to McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund. In 2017, Blavatnik donated another $1 million to the committee, records show, bringing the total to $3.5 million.
The sanctions and Blavatnik’s connectionIn April 2018, the Trump administration announced sanctions on multiple Russian oligarchs and their companies, including Deripaska and his aluminum company Rusal, the second-largest aluminium company in the world. Deripaska is known to be closely allied with the Kremlin, and his name has come up in emails turned over to the Mueller investigation.
Then, in December, the administration agreed to lift the sanctions on Deripaska’s companies in exchange for him giving up majority ownership, along with other concessions.
About a month later, McConnell led Senate Republicans and blocked a Democratic effort to keep the sanctions on Deripaska’s companies.
Now that we are all caught up, how are Blavatnik and Deripaska connected?
As two of the richest Russian men in the United Kingdom, it’s not entirely surprising they have had business dealings. According to a report by the Dallas News, Blavatnik and business partner Viktor Vekselburg hold a 20.5 percent stake in Rusal.
(Vekselberg made news in May 2018 after it was revealed that a U.S. firm he invests in wired $500,000 to a company owned by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney.)
McConnell “was not aware of any potential Russian investor before the vote,” spokesman David Popp said.
Bouchard said no one from his company, Braidy Industries, told anyone in the U.S. government that lifting sanctions could help advance the project. Rusal’s parent company, EN+, said in a statement that the Kentucky project played no role in the company’s vigorous lobbying campaign to persuade U.S. officials to do away with sanctions.
But critics said the timing is disturbing.
“It is shocking how blatantly transactional this arrangement looks,” said Michael McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration and now teaches at Stanford University.
And who remembers Maria Butina, her NRA involvement and the NRA's largest single political donation ever and who it went to? Nothing to see here, folks, nothing at all.Democratic senators have called for a government review of the deal, prompting a Rusal executive in Moscow last week to threaten to pull out of the investment.
The Rusal-backed project is one of several issues fueling broader scrutiny of McConnell’s posture toward Russia and its efforts to manipulate American voters.
In 2016, McConnell privately expressed skepticism about the intelligence reports on Russia’s activities in the election and resisted a push by the Obama administration to issue a bipartisan statement condemning the Kremlin. Last month, he blocked consideration of election security bills that have bipartisan support, despite warnings from the FBI and the intelligence community about the risks of foreign interference in the 2020 election.
Nice to see the shills shilling:
Which Senators Have Taken the Most NRA Money? | Brady (bradyunited.org)
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
The top contributor may have been164k, but that was probably from someone that has 10 other friends that care about the same thing that threw down a ton of money on their own. The interests are aligned. And if Mitch doesn't take it, then his primary opponent will.HughFreakingDillon said:
the $85K was just an estimate of single contribution by any given individual based on the figures I was looking at on that website.mrussel1 said:
I don't know what the $85k is, but let's take Mitch as an example. He was up for re-election in 2020. He raised $65MM for his re-election committee. That meant he could overwhelm any opponent on TV, internet, FB, wherever. Now the people who gave him the $65MM did it for a reason. They want something back in the form of legislation or blocking legislation. Mitch doesn't need $174K, but he sure as hell doesn't want to throw down millions of his personal money in a campaign either.HughFreakingDillon said:
k, i'll try again. you said "they don't need the $174". if that's the case, why would $85K influence them in any way? why would certain senators vote certain ways that make no sense for their constituents if that amount is truly the real amount?mrussel1 said:
Because it's about the campaign contributions.. Now you can't xfer that to yourself, but that is your key to getting re-elected. If you dn't have fat campaign contributions, you're dead in the water unless you use your own money. Glen Youngkin (GOP gov candidate here in VA) is funding his campaign heavily using his own money and is overwhelming Terry McCauliffe on TV. Most people understandably do not want to self fund.HughFreakingDillon said:
if all these people are receiving for their campaigns are the monies being disclosed, then why do they "need" that either? the average lobbyist spending amounts on open secrets is in the same range as their salaries. so why would a lobbyist be influential if the recipient doesn't need the money? i realize that no politician wants to spend their own money on campaigns, but still, in the grand scheme, these amounts are piddly compared to their net worth. (and yes, I realize net worth isn't liquid money).mrussel1 said:
People don't become senators as their first job out of college. These are men/women from means who are either family money or became wealthy. It's the patrician's job in the US. The first person on your list is Mark Warner. He is a multi-millionaire who founded the venture capitalist firm that create Nextel cellular in the 90s. They don't need the $174k a year.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, I'm not saying that people are just getting a briefcase full of cash for a promise. I don't know exactly how it works or how they do it, but when you do the math, senators making $174K a year, but having millions in net worth, doesn't fucking add up. that's just math.mrussel1 said:
Show me an example of a politician directly receiving money from a lobbyist to their personal net worth that is not prosecuted. That's the accusation against Sinema, which as of today, is completely baseless. Not even Trump does that. He is smart enough to have everything go into his PAC and then travels around on that. But he can't buy a car, a house, or anything else personal using lobbyist or individual donation money because that is a crime. Your accusation, if connected to the Sinema accusation, is that happens every day and we all see it but it isn't being prosecuted. I call bullshit on that.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is it bullshit? we see evidence of it every freaking day.mrussel1 said:
This is bullshit too. No offense. It's illegal and prosecuted.HughFreakingDillon said:that is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing american politics. the fact that this extreme lobbying is allowed. buying a politician is just done, wide out in the open. it's completely accepted. it's unbelievable.
I'm sure it's hidden. I'm sure it's funneled, etc. No, I don't have direct evidence. I'm not saying a blanket "all politicians are corrupt". But you have to admit, if I'm making $174K a year, I shouldn't have a millions in assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
If I have $200 in my wallet consistently, my work shelling out for a $2 coffee isn't going to make me a company man.
my point is, yes, of course he doesn't want to shell out $65M of his own cash, but if each individual contribution is kept to a legal amount that is lower than what he could himself afford, why would that buy his influence? His top contributor was $164 thousand. If his salary of $174 thousand is a mere pittance, why would $164 weigh him on voting on any issues? that's all I mean. of course the total of the contributions he gets is an insane amount. But my point is why would he be swayed on any one issue by any one contributor if that is TRULY the sum they contributed to the campaign?
*I'll admit to my potential ignorance on this issue, I'm going on my limited knowledge and what I've read, so I'd understand if there's some major component I'm missing here. It just looks to me on paper that this stuff doesn't add up, figuratively and literally*0 -
More on Moscow Mitchy Baby:
That we know of. It seems that Moscow Mitch’s money-man “constituent” Oleg Deripaska — besides moving his Aluminum plant Rusal to Kentucky, thanks to Moscow Mitch’s insistence on passing at least 1 Bill — Oleg will have Millions left over to direct to the NRA’s dark-money fund ILA. Or, however else that Putin sees fit for 2020 …
When President Trump’s Treasury Department proposed lifting sanctions on companies tied to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in December Secretary Steven Mnuchin vowed that the firms would be forced to “significantly diminish Deripaska’s ownership and sever his control.”
But, the New York Times is now reporting that Treasury’s promises were illusory: “The deal contains provisions that free [Deripaska] from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while leaving him and his allies with majority ownership of his most important company.”
[...]
This is a dark twist in a sub-plot of Trump administration’s love story with the Russia of Vladimir Putin. Deripaska has been called “Putin’s favorite industrialist” and also had contentious and longstanding ties to now-jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Manafort — who had received $10 million loan from Deripaska — offered to give the aluminum magnate “private briefings” on the state of the presidential race in the summer of 2016.
[...]
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held together a coalition of 42 Republicans, including erstwhile Russia hawks Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to keep the lifting of sanctions on track.
www.rollingstone.com — Jan 22, 2109
With "Help" like this Trump and McConnell OWE Them (dailykos.com)
In case Dailykos isn't your cup of tea:
Shortly after the Trump-Putin press conference, federal prosecutors announced the indictment of Maria Butina, a Russian national in Washington, DC, who, unlike the 25 Russians the special counsel has so far indicted, was arrested over the weekend. Butina, who in 2016 attempted to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin, is accused of operating as a foreign agent to gain influence in Republican political circles and advance the interests of the Russian Federation. Working on behalf of Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of the Russian Central Bank, she appears to have brokered ties with the National Rifle Association and conservative religious organizations, which she herself accurately identified as the financial backbones of the Republican Party in Congress.
Russiagate Is Far Wider Than Trump and His Inner Circle | The Nation
Nothing to see here, folks. All fake news.Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help