Obama Trying to Intimidate People from Donating to Romeny

[Rupert Pupkin]

It's a sad day for our country when the President of the United States is bullying his own citizens and trying to intimidate them from donating money to his opponent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...604524916.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's a sad day for our country when the President of the United States is bullying his own citizens and trying to intimidate them from donating money to his opponent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...604524916.html

Little hyperbole there, huh?

Yeah, pointing out donors has never, ever happened before in a Presidential campaign

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Little hyperbole there, huh?

Yeah, pointing out donors has never, ever happened before in a Presidential campaign

It would be one thing to generalize about a candidate being supported by special interest groups. For example, if Romney was getting a lot of money from big oil companies, or the NRA, or whatever, I think that would be fair game for Obama to bring up.

But for Obama to be naming private citizens is totally inappropriate. As the article says, "Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It would be one thing to generalize about a candidate being supported by special interest groups. For example, if Romney was getting a lot of money from big oil companies, or the NRA, or whatever, I think that would be fair game for Obama to bring up.

But for Obama to be naming private citizens is totally inappropriate. As the article says, "Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one."

You mean like has happened in every Presidential election in the past? When, you know, donors become public?

Serious Obama Derangement Syndrome of the part of that writer.

For example, if Romney was getting a lot of money from big oil companies, or the NRA, or whatever,

"If" ??? Nearly all Romney's money has been big bucks from big campaign donors (alot of Wall Street), very small percentage from average people. Most of Obama's is from average small donors. That's what was published in the last quarterly campaign finance disclosure stuff.

Romney will just be Bush's third term. They bragged last week that Romney's economic policies are the same as Bush W. I'm simply amazed at the incompetence of Romney's campaign staff.

[GenuineRisk]

Sigh. Once again, Obama Derangement Syndrome blocks people from taking the time to Google because then they might have to admit that something that tells them something they want to believe is true is, in fact, total bullsh*t..

From the FEC site:

<Information Available to the Public
As a voter, you may be interested in learning how a particular candidate finances his or her campaign. Who is contributing? How much? Is the candidate using personal funds to finance the campaign? Does the committee have debts? Or you may want to know which candidates a party committee or PAC is supporting, and how much the committee is giving.

This information is available to the public in the campaign finance reports regularly filed by all political committees supporting Federal candidates. You may access these reports and other FEC campaign finance information on your home computer. The Commission's Public Records Office also keeps all reports on file and will send you copies of specific reports, upon request. You can also order computer printouts focused on the information you want. Call the toll-free number, 800-424-9530, or 202-694-1120.>

http://fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#info

So, this information that Obama is allegedly using to "bully" people, in fact, is available to anyone with a home computer, courtesy of the Federal Election Commission.

I notice, too, that this op-ed piece didn't actually include a link to the the page that was allegedly so threatening. So, I did what any person capable of rudimentary critical thinking would do- I went and looked at the actual page. Here's a link:

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behi...omneys-donors/

And nothing on the page is anything that isn't public record. Nor is there anything that remotely sounds like a threat.

What was particularly hilarious in that absurd op-ed was the comparison of this site listing public information to Nixon's enemies list. Omigawd; they're EXACTLY THE SAME, YOU GUYS! Because shut up, that's why!

ODS strikes again! (edit: corrected because I mistyped. See ice and forehead slapping, below)

I now need to get ice to counteract the bruise I gave myself from all the forehead slapping.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Sigh. Once again, Obama Derangement Syndrome blocks people from taking the time to Google because then they might have to admit that something that tells them something they want to believe is true is, in fact, total bullsh*t..

From the FEC site:

<Information Available to the Public
As a voter, you may be interested in learning how a particular candidate finances his or her campaign. Who is contributing? How much? Is the candidate using personal funds to finance the campaign? Does the committee have debts? Or you may want to know which candidates a party committee or PAC is supporting, and how much the committee is giving.

This information is available to the public in the campaign finance reports regularly filed by all political committees supporting Federal candidates. You may access these reports and other FEC campaign finance information on your home computer. The Commission's Public Records Office also keeps all reports on file and will send you copies of specific reports, upon request. You can also order computer printouts focused on the information you want. Call the toll-free number, 800-424-9530, or 202-694-1120.>

http://fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#info

So, this information that Obama is allegedly using to "bully" people, in fact, is available to anyone with a home computer, courtesy of the Federal Election Commission.

I notice, too, that this op-ed piece didn't actually include a link to the the page that was allegedly so threatening. So, I did what any person capable of rudimentary critical thinking would do- I went and looked at the actual page. Here's a link:

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behi...omneys-donors/

And nothing on the page is anything that isn't public record. Nor is there anything that remotely sounds like a threat.

What was particularly hilarious in that absurd op-ed was the comparison of this site listing public information to Nixon's enemies list. Omigawd; they're EXACTLY THE SAME, YOU GUYS! Because shut up, that's why!

ODS strikes again! (edit: corrected because I mistyped. See ice and forehead slapping, below)

I now need to get ice to counteract the bruise I gave myself from all the forehead slapping.

Just because something is public, it doesn't mean that it should be posted. For example, would it be ok to tweet George Zimmerman's home address like some people tried to do? I think almost anybody would say that it's not ok. But using your logic, it would be ok because if someone really wanted to know his address, they could find it through public records. I'm sure there are plenty of public records with his home address. That still doesn't make it ok to post his address.

There is no reason for Obama to be calling private citizens out for donating money to Romney. That is a form of intimidation IMO. I understand that you could look the information up. That still doesn't make it ok IMO.

In addition, it would have been bad enough if Obama simply listed names and the amounts they gave. But he did more than that. He not only gave the people's names, but he gave a commentary on each person.

I'm sure you have donated money to candidates before and you know that it is public record. But would you like it if I created a website about it where I posted your name and told people personal information about you, such as information about your business dealings and that type of thing? I'm sure you wouldn't like it, even though it would be legal. I would expect more from our President. I can guarantee that if you were wealthy and you would have donated $100,000 to John Kerry back in 2004, you would have been outraged if President Bush called you out on it on his website and gave personal information about your business dealings.

[Danzig]

i think the woman's article comes across as paranoia. donors have always been listed, never saw it written about in such a way before.

when obama actually tries to do something (ie sic the irs or one of the other agencies she named) to someone, than i'll think she has a point. right now nothing has been done differently than in any other campaign.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Just because something is public, it doesn't mean that it should be posted. For example, would it be ok to tweet George Zimmerman's home address like some people tried to do? I think almost anybody would say that it's not ok. But using your logic, it would be ok because if someone really wanted to know his address, they could find it through public records. I'm sure there are plenty of public records with his home address. That still doesn't make it ok to post his address.

That there is what you call a false equivalency. Because giving out someone's home address online is nothing like public reporting of their political donations. Which has been required by law since the 1970's. If you don't like it, write your Congresscritter. Next:

There is no reason for Obama to be calling private citizens out for donating money to Romney. That is a form of intimidation IMO. I understand that you could look the information up. That still doesn't make it ok IMO.

Keyword being "IMO." In MY HO, public disclosure of political donations is necessary for free and open elections. Citizens have a right to know who is financing candidates' elections, as the political positions of those financiers absolutely influence the candidates' positions. There's nothing intimidating about it; no one is forced to donate to candidates. If you're convinced you're going to be hassled by the IRS, and you have something to hide from the IRS (otherwise why worry about being hassled by them?) then don't make political contributions.

In addition, it would have been bad enough if Obama simply listed names and the amounts they gave. But he did more than that. He not only gave the people's names, but he gave a commentary on each person.

None of which was inaccurate. There's a saying, only the truth hurts.

I'm sure you have donated money to candidates before and you know that it is public record. But would you like it if I created a website about it where I posted your name and told people personal information about you, such as information about your business dealings and that type of thing? I'm sure you wouldn't like it, even though it would be legal. I would expect more from our President. I can guarantee that if you were wealthy and you would have donated $100,000 to John Kerry back in 2004, you would have been outraged if President Bush called you out on it on his website and gave personal information about your business dealings.

I wouldn't care. I'd love to be rich enough that someone gave a sh*t about where my political donations go. And apparently Bill Mahar doesn't care who knows he donated $1 million to Obama.

And here are a few pieces, easily google-able, that list the names of big political donors- the Times one is about Obama's big contributors.

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...=1202548974101

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us...pagewanted=all

I look forward to your explanation of how the NYTimes is trying to intimidate people out of donating to Obama by listing the names of his big donors.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That there is what you call a false equivalency. Because giving out someone's home address online is nothing like public reporting of their political donations. Which has been required by law since the 1970's. If you don't like it, write your Congresscritter. Next:



Keyword being "IMO." In MY HO, public disclosure of political donations is necessary for free and open elections. Citizens have a right to know who is financing candidates' elections, as the political positions of those financiers absolutely influence the candidates' positions. There's nothing intimidating about it; no one is forced to donate to candidates. If you're convinced you're going to be hassled by the IRS, and you have something to hide from the IRS (otherwise why worry about being hassled by them?) then don't make political contributions.



None of which was inaccurate. There's a saying, only the truth hurts.



I wouldn't care. I'd love to be rich enough that someone gave a sh*t about where my political donations go. And apparently Bill Mahar doesn't care who knows he donated $1 million to Obama.

And here are a few pieces, easily google-able, that list the names of big political donors- the Times one is about Obama's big contributors.

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...=1202548974101

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us...pagewanted=all

I look forward to your explanation of how the NYTimes is trying to intimidate people out of donating to Obama by listing the names of his big donors.

The NY Times didn't attack the character of any of the donors.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The NY Times didn't attack the character of any of the donors.

donors have always fallen under scrutiny, with many pols getting heat for some of their donors, and many of them returning the money that was given. this is nothing new, people pointing out who gave to whom and how much.

this is another in a long line of stories that illustrate the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

donors have always fallen under scrutiny, with many pols getting heat for some of their donors, and many of them returning the money that was given. this is nothing new, people pointing out who gave to whom and how much.

this is another in a long line of stories that illustrate the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'.

I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any previous President posting names of their opponent's donors on a website, and then doing a negative commentary on each donor. If this has been done before, then I totally agree with you that the writer of the op-ed is just being hypocritical. But I don't think this has been done before.

[Danzig]

lol
you think barack made the list? that's hilarious.

and yes, there have been sites, lists, character discussions about donors, etc. this is nothing new.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
you think barack made the list? that's hilarious.

and yes, there have been sites, lists, character discussions about donors, etc. this is nothing new.

You know what I mean. I don't mean that he personally made the list.

I still think this is a first in terms of a list with a negative commentary posted on the President's website. If you can show me when this was done in the past, then I will admit that you are right and that the article was much ado about nothing.

[Danzig]

yeah, cause i care if you think i'm right. you can google 'donor list' and get a list of any donors from a variety of campaigns. you'll also see various and sundry articles that refer to donations being returned when someone on the receiving end of money found that the donor was an unpalatable sort.
matter of fact, we've even seen references in this room about the kochs and their donations. it's public knowledge. oh noes...someone supporting obama posted commentary. stop the presses.

gimme a break. why don't you worry about stuff that has happened that is important, such as the law saying people can be detained indefinitely without charges? i have. but no, let's worry about some rantings from some chick who just knows that democracy is coming to an end because someone commented about a donors character.


EDIT- by the way, if the president didn't make the list, isn't fooling with the website, how does that fit in with your first post saying the pres is 'bullying' and 'intimidating'?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You know what I mean. I don't mean that he personally made the list.

I still think this is a first in terms of a list with a negative commentary posted on the President's website. If you can show me when this was done in the past, then I will admit that you are right and that the article was much ado about nothing.

Look at McCain's campaign, and the right wing conservative organizations, over the President and Hillary's donors in 2008. Commercials made, ads made ...

Look at the Bush years regarding donor wars. Go before that, they all have done it. This is something every single campaign does - point at the other guys supporters.

[Danzig]

come to think of it, didn't the article cited in the thread opener mention nixons's enemies list? and didn't bush try to dig up dirt on a war critic? i'll have to look for that one.

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us...er=rss&emc=rss


apparently from my searches, bush also had an enemies list...one begun when he was gov. of texas.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us...er=rss&emc=rss


apparently from my searches, bush also had an enemies list...one begun when he was gov. of texas.

It is totally illegal for the President to use the resources of the government (such as the CIA) to try to dig up dirt on his enemies. If it was proven that the Bush White House did this, they could get in a lot of trouble. It will never be proven because there was is only one guy that claims that it happened. The other people who were asked about it, deny it or claim they don't remember. I bet the allegations are probably true. When a guys says he "doesn't remember", it is a pretty safe bet to assume that the alleged incidents did in fact happen.

Even though none of us approve of this type of thing (not to mention that it is illegal), it's not a big surprise that this type of thing goes on and has been going on for a long time, even before Nixon.

[Chalky]

Notice not one donor in the piece has come forward to dispute what was written as lies. Seems like they would if any of it was not true, and they would file suit. if it is in fact true, then I think we have right to know who our candidates will be beholden to if elected. That goes for all candidates. Romney could do the same thing, and probably will. It is time to expose the real "people behind the curtain" and maybe then candidates will think twice before accepting donations from scumbags.

[AlreadyHome]

Obama #1 Haters go play yourself ......
wtf let the Prez do his Job

my prez is black