corupt biden got more "dark money" to run for pres in history

[calfoxwc]

so, what in the ....

Dinesh got prosecuted for an illegal campaign contribution?

but biden gets more dark money (anonymous)... like from...china?....

and that's okay?

more dark money than anyone else has ever gotten?

and you lefties are fine with that? our election stolen by anonymous money?

https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-dark-money-campaign-donations-trump

Biden reeled in more 'dark money' than any other candidate in history, majorly outpaced Trump donations: report

 

[Axe]

Libs don't care..

 

[The Cysko Kid]

Of course he did. Trump has to be the most hated person in american history; certainly in the last hundred years. It's of no surprise to me that unprecedented forces were brought to bear against him. 

[Ibleedbrown]

12 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

so, what in the ....

Dinesh got prosecuted for an illegal campaign contribution?

but biden gets more dark money (anonymous)... like from...china?....

and that's okay?

more dark money than anyone else has ever gotten?

and you lefties are fine with that? our election stolen by anonymous money?

https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-dark-money-campaign-donations-trump

Biden reeled in more 'dark money' than any other candidate in history, majorly outpaced Trump donations: report

 

Thanks for the article Cal. I really dug into this one. I read the Blaze article as well as the cited and linked articles within that article to Bloomberg, CNN, South China Morning Post, and Politico. I have always believed some shady stuff went on with campaign finance, but l was unfamiliar with the term “dark money.”

In the article it’s basically defined as “spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed.”

My assumption before reading all this was that both democrats and republicans took part in “dark money” campaign funding, and that is indeed true. In fact, prior to this election, republicans out gained democrats per the CNN article. “The trend toward Democrats is a stark reversal from previous presidential election cycles in which dark money overwhelmingly boosted Republicans.”

Interestingly, democrats tried to introduce campaign finance reform legislation in opposition to stuff like this, but it was quashed by Mitch McConnell. Also from the linked CNN article. “A measure pushed by Democrats on Capitol Hill would bring sweeping changes to elections, including requiring nonprofit dark money groups that engage in politics to disclose their larger donors. It would also give federal candidates as much as a 6-to-1 match of public funds for small donations.

The Democrat-led House passed their plan, a bill dubbed H.R. 1, last year. But it has gained no traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. McConnell has made no secret of his disdain for the Democratic efforts to overhaul the campaign finance system. 

The Kentucky Republican has called H.R. 1 an "one big, expensive partisan power grab." And he has steadfastly opposed any attempts to unmask donors to dark money nonprofits, warning that "angry left-wing activists" are poised "to harass and bully anyone who's contributing to national conversations with political views that they disagree with."”

The article points out that Mitch oversees an entity called One Nation which is the single largest donor of anonymous money, so it makes sense that he would oppose it. Also makes it ironic with regard to the last election.

The articles shed further insight on how the democrats out gained republicans in dark money for this last election. From the Bloomberg article, in an interview with the director of one of these funds, “the surge of money to the group, which doesn’t disclose the names of its donors, included people who previously gave to Republicans or had not been engaged in politics.”

It also cites that Biden broke the record in gaining $145 million in dark money to Trump’s $28.4 million, with the previous record held my Mitt Romney with $113 million. 

One other thing l found interesting is that the Blaze cited and linked an article from the South China Morning Post. That struck me as an odd source to use, but when l read it l discovered it was the exact same article as the Bloomberg article. I immediately wondered why they would cite 2 sources for the same article, and my suspicion is that it gave an excuse to mention “China.” 
 

No where in any of these articles does it speculate where these “dark money” funds come from, but l see in your post you seem to insinuate that Biden is getting more dark money from China. That’s how they get ya man. Don’t fall for that stuff. 

Overall interesting reads. I tried to summarize as best l could. Basically they’re all playing the same game, it’s just that the democrats did better at it in the last round, but republicans are the historic winners of the “dark money” game.

[calfoxwc]

thanks for bloviating and expanding the op.

It wasn't about "reps do it too".

It was about the danger of dark money, and I resent it ever being allowed in the first place.

and,

MY OP WAS ABOUT, I mentioned Dinesh going to prison. You said nothing about that, too.

Start your own threads. Your posts are sounding more and more like woodpecker stoned....

[tiamat63]

58 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Thanks for the article Cal. I really dug into this one. I read the Blaze article as well as the cited and linked articles within that article to Bloomberg, CNN, South China Morning Post, and Politico. I have always believed some shady stuff went on with campaign finance, but l was unfamiliar with the term “dark money.”

In the article it’s basically defined as “spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed.”

My assumption before reading all this was that both democrats and republicans took part in “dark money” campaign funding, and that is indeed true. In fact, prior to this election, republicans out gained democrats per the CNN article. “The trend toward Democrats is a stark reversal from previous presidential election cycles in which dark money overwhelmingly boosted Republicans.”

Interestingly, democrats tried to introduce campaign finance reform legislation in opposition to stuff like this, but it was quashed by Mitch McConnell. Also from the linked CNN article. “A measure pushed by Democrats on Capitol Hill would bring sweeping changes to elections, including requiring nonprofit dark money groups that engage in politics to disclose their larger donors. It would also give federal candidates as much as a 6-to-1 match of public funds for small donations.

The Democrat-led House passed their plan, a bill dubbed H.R. 1, last year. But it has gained no traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. McConnell has made no secret of his disdain for the Democratic efforts to overhaul the campaign finance system. 

The Kentucky Republican has called H.R. 1 an "one big, expensive partisan power grab." And he has steadfastly opposed any attempts to unmask donors to dark money nonprofits, warning that "angry left-wing activists" are poised "to harass and bully anyone who's contributing to national conversations with political views that they disagree with."”

The article points out that Mitch oversees an entity called One Nation which is the single largest donor of anonymous money, so it makes sense that he would oppose it. Also makes it ironic with regard to the last election.

The articles shed further insight on how the democrats out gained republicans in dark money for this last election. From the Bloomberg article, in an interview with the director of one of these funds, “the surge of money to the group, which doesn’t disclose the names of its donors, included people who previously gave to Republicans or had not been engaged in politics.”

It also cites that Biden broke the record in gaining $145 million in dark money to Trump’s $28.4 million, with the previous record held my Mitt Romney with $113 million. 

One other thing l found interesting is that the Blaze cited and linked an article from the South China Morning Post. That struck me as an odd source to use, but when l read it l discovered it was the exact same article as the Bloomberg article. I immediately wondered why they would cite 2 sources for the same article, and my suspicion is that it gave an excuse to mention “China.” 
 

No where in any of these articles does it speculate where these “dark money” funds come from, but l see in your post you seem to insinuate that Biden is getting more dark money from China. That’s how they get ya man. Don’t fall for that stuff. 

Overall interesting reads. I tried to summarize as best l could. Basically they’re all playing the same game, it’s just that the democrats did better at it in the last round, but republicans are the historic winners of the “dark money” game.

 

5 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

 

Start your own threads. Your posts are sounding more and more like woodpecker stoned....

 

@Ibleedbrown  How's that uphill climb coming?

[calfoxwc]

Just now, tiamat63 said:

 

@Ibleedbrown  How's that uphill climb coming?

we've had these conversations before - about how both sides do it.  But now it has grown to critical levels, historically.

try to keep up. ibb has missed out on most stuff that has gone on before.

but thanks for trying to butt in "constructively". lol

 

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, calfoxwc said:

we've had these conversations before - about how both sides do it.  But now it has grown to critical levels, historically.

try to keep up. ibb has missed out on most stuff that has gone on before.

but thanks for trying to butt in "constructively". lol

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to be constructive.  My post was 100% mocking you, don't mistake that in the least.

But at least I'll have some film on your ND safety in the next few hours.  So we'll always have Paris.

[calfoxwc]

7 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Oh, I wasn't trying to be constructive.  My post was 100% mocking you, don't mistake that in the least.

But at least I'll have some film on your ND safety in the next few hours.  So we'll always have Paris.

mocking is all you can do over here. I was BORN a goofy comedian child. You don't seem to have a sense of humor.

and Canady is Not my safety. I've read about him. Go back and read and comprehend the discussions.

I have never mentioned him. Not ever. I had to go look up this link for you to get his name again.

and anybody else can tell you I have never mentioned him. Have a nice wrongly day. My safety(smallish lb) was Owusu, perhaps that will help you get your mind right.

https://www.nfldraftdiamonds.com/2020/06/jordan-canady/

[Ibleedbrown]

29 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

1) thanks for bloviating and expanding the op.

2) It wasn't about "reps do it too".

3) It was about the danger of dark money, and I resent it ever being allowed in the first place.

and,

4) MY OP WAS ABOUT, I mentioned Dinesh going to prison. You said nothing about that, too.

5) Start your own threads. Your posts are sounding more and more like woodpecker stoned....

1) You’re welcome!

2) Ok, but you did just thank me for bloviating. A more complete picture is never a bad thing. 

3) I agree! Now how do we get Mitch McConnell to also agree?

4) Dinesh wasn’t mentioned in the 5 or 6 articles. I suppose l could further research whoever that is another time, but for this l stayed within the perimeter of the article you provided and the cited material it was written from. 

5) Lol, l may be more discerning than others when it comes to starting threads. If l get a humdinger of an idea l’ll start one.

[Ibleedbrown]

28 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

 

@Ibleedbrown  How's that uphill climb coming?

Swimmingly! We are learning together and building bonds.

[calfoxwc]

22 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

3) I agree! Now how do we get Mitch McConnell to also agree?

4) Dinesh wasn’t mentioned in the 5 or 6 articles. I suppose l could further research whoever that is another time, but for this l stayed within the perimeter of the article you provided and the cited material it was written from. 

5) Lol, l may be more discerning than others when it comes to starting threads. If l get a humdinger of an idea l’ll start one.

I don't trust McConnell as far as I could throw a lead football to Tiam. Never have. Not a fan. I brought up Dinesh, not Mitch.

Do you know who Dinesh is? or not? I brought up the question about Dinesh, the articles were about dark money being spent.

I only posted one article. Are you in high school? A hippie high school? lol.

Actually, you are far more eloquent in your hippiness than woodpecker would ever be capable of on any subject. And you spell very well.

But I ain't never gonna buy the stuff you r sellin.

[Ibleedbrown]

57 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I don't trust McConnell as far as I could throw a lead football to Tiam. Never have. Not a fan. I brought up Dinesh, not Mitch.

Do you know who Dinesh is? or not? I brought up the question about Dinesh, the articles were about dark money being spent.

I only posted one article. Are you in high school? A hippie high school? lol.

Actually, you are far more eloquent in your hippiness than woodpecker would ever be capable of on any subject. And you spell very well.

But I ain't never gonna buy the stuff you r sellin.

The article from the Blaze you posted was written from several other articles. Those were the source material for the Blaze article. They are cited right in the article itself. Bloomberg, CNN, Yahoo News, Politico, and some outfit called South China Morning Post. 

Here’s the first paragraph from the Blaze article. 

“President Joe Biden received a record-breaking amount of "dark money" from anonymous contributors that helped propel him into the White House. A Bloomberg report found that the Biden campaign accepted more dark money than any other presidential candidate in American history.”

That underlined bit in red that says “Bloomberg” is a hyperlink that leads to the Bloomberg article. That’s how some articles are written. They are compiled from other previously written articles. I read all of the linked articles. If you pull up the Bloomberg article and the South China Morning Post article you will see they are the exact same article. I found that to be odd but my assumption was they did it so they could include the word “China” in there. 

These are the tricks media outlets use to cater towards political leanings. They can be effective too. You mentioned China in the OP, but there is no mention of where “dark money” comes from other than “anonymous sources”, either in the Blaze article or any of the others it used as source material. So they can trick the reader into making assumptions. 

I do not know who Dinesh is. Feel free to enlighten me.

And thanks for the compliment. I just payed attention is school and stuff.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

"A Japanese man walked into the currency exchange in New York City with 2000 yen and walked out with $72.

The following week, he walked in with another 2000 yen, and was handed $66.

He asked the teller why he got less money that week than the previous week.

The teller said, "Fluctuations."

The Japanese man stormed out, and just before slamming the door, turned around and shouted, "Fluc you Amelicans, too!"

[Canton Dawg]

 

3) I agree! Now how do we get Mitch Mitch McConnell Chuck Schumer to also agree?

FYP, Chuck is now the New Senate Majority Leader.

[Ibleedbrown]

2 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

FYP, Chuck is now the New Senate Majority Leader.

Ah ha, you’re right. And it’ll be real curios to see if the democrats are still interested in election finance reform, or if they might back burner it a bit longer. Now that they had a victory with the whole “dark money” thing, would it surprise anyone if they’re suddenly not so interested in pursuing election finance reform?

[Vambo]