Obama Trying to Intimidate People from Donating to Romeny

[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.