Was Obama rattled by developing donor scandal story?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PS. I apologize that post of mine shows two images now… the bottom one didn’t even appear until at least an hour after I submitted the post and I don’t even know how it wound up there. Of course once the redundant bottom image popped up it was already too late to go back and try to edit.

mesosorry 😦
 
exoflare said:
PS. I apologize that post of mine shows two images now… the bottom one didn’t even appear until at least an hour after I submitted the post and I don’t even know how it wound up there. Of course once the redundant bottom image popped up it was already too late to go back and try to edit.

mesosorry 😦
Click to expand...
:)🙂
 
Apparently Newsweek is going to release a report on Obama fundraising irregularities. September 2% of their donations were above $50. FEC says donations above $50 have to be reported but under names do nto need to be publicly disclosed

Obama campaign in 2008 let donors use ‘largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity’
 
ringil said:
I don’t read those publications. I don’t read openly biased material- Right or Left- or at least give it much credence- as I am not an ideologue.
Click to expand...
ringil said:
I don’t read leftist blogs. I couldn’t even name one. I only see Rightist blogs due to my time on CAF.

As I said. I dislike ideologues.
Click to expand...
ringil said:
Really? You are going to defend that whole mess? If so, going back and forth with you is even less worthwhile than I first suspected. You are simply not being honest to if you are playing the ideologue here. Wait, actually you would be playing the ideologue. . .
Click to expand...
ringil said:
OK, you are simply being an ideologue. I should have known better- my mistake…
Click to expand...
Well, this certainly gets my vote for (unintentionally) funniest thread of the day. 😃

After reading the above posts, I couldn’t help but think of this:





:rotfl:
 
LisaA said:
Your opinion ringil and not very compelling.

Lisa
Click to expand...
i agree. Breitbart is a reliable news source. ringil doesn’t like it because it favors conservative views. thank goodness we have a few news sources to rely on and we don’t have to believe the stories that the MSM puts out.
 
7_Sorrows said:
i agree. Breitbart is a reliable news source. ringil doesn’t like it because it favors conservative views. thank goodness we have a few news sources to rely on and we don’t have to believe the stories that the MSM puts out.
Click to expand...
Emphasis is mine.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Emphasis is mine.
Click to expand...
Prodigal Son, here’s the point. A news source can be credible, in that its stories are true, even if it focuses on stories that happen to bolster its particular ideology.

It’s fine that the NYT is far Left, IF they would admit it. Unfortunately they pretend that they are unbiased which is utterly laughable. Breitbart or for that matter Daily Beast both have an ideology. It doesn’t mean the stories they run are not true, it simply means if you read one or the other, you are likely to get a story that bolsters their particular view. They won’t run around looking for stories that tend to demean it. Do you recall the Abu Gharaib incidents? FIFTY DAYS ABOVE THE FOLD in the NYT. Now it doesn’t mean that what the NYT printed wasn’t true but it does demonstrate they had an agenda. Corrections or stories that don’t comport with their viewpoint are on page 87 below the fold…get it?

If you are a true consumer of news and want both sides, be aware of the particular medium’s slant and gather information from the opposite viewpoint.

What digusts me is those media that will print either outright untruths or those that will ignore a story that tends to diminish their ideology. Remember for months and months the oh so tacky Enquirer was claiming Jon Edwards was stepping out on his sick wife DURING his presidential campaign. Virtually ignored by the MSM until literally hit in the face with reality they grudgingly printed it. That IMO is journalistic irresponsibility.

I have ZERO respect for the MSM anymore and get my news from a variety of sources other than the alphabet soup channels or the big name papers.

Lisa
 
Is the Obama Campaign Being Financed By Foreign Donations?
Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute is out with a report today on foreign and fraudulent campaign contributions. It is the most comprehensive treatment of the issue to date. The key findings relate to the Obama campaign:
Click to expand...
  • The Obama campaign lacks the “industry standard level” of credit card security for donations
  • The website Obama.com was purchased by an Obama bundler based in Shanghai, China, with questionable ties to state-run enterprises
  • 68% of the traffic to Obama.com is foreign, and the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months
Click to expand...
Schweizer also finds that, based on the security measures currently in place, nearly half of Congress is vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign donations. Schweizer provided this statement to Powerline, which covers the report here
Click to expand...
:

When it comes to money in this campaign all the focus has been on Super PACs. But far more troubling in my mind is the reality of how easily foreign governments or individuals can inject funds in the U.S. presidential campaign. The FEC does not require basic security for internet donations. And in the case of the Obama campaign, the gate appears to be wide open. You need to use the CVV security code on your credit card to buy an Obama hoodie but not make a donation. And there is very real evidence that the campaign is not using the address verification system (AVS) in any real way. There are simply too many contributions they accept with either no zip code or an incorrect zip code. To make matters worse, donations under $200 don’t even need to be disclosed. Twenty years ago that might not matter but in the era of robo-donations its a huge problem.
 
_Abyssinia said:
The Illegal Donor Loophole
Click to expand...
From The Daily Beast of all non-right wing places! I know that when I give online I fill out the whole form, CDW number and all. Apparently it’s easy to set up multiple donations under false names.

Does it creep anyone else out that Roche’s company is named Acorn? I can’t hear that word without thinking of the Planned Parenthood videos where the staff offered to help hide an underage foreign prostitute ring.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
From The Daily Beast of all non-right wing places! I know that when I give online I fill out the whole form, CDW number and all. Apparently it’s easy to set up multiple donations under false names.

Does it creep anyone else out that Roche’s company is named Acorn? I can’t hear that word without thinking of the Planned Parenthood videos where the staff offered to help hide an underage foreign prostitute ring.

Lisa
Click to expand...
In addition to the Daily Beast, see this on the Daily Caller: Claim: Obama campaign illegally solicited foreign donors via social media website

Also see this from Erick Erickson of Red State: I Donated to Barack Obama (not that I advocate Erickson’s methods, but it is interesting).
 
markomalley said:
In addition to the Daily Beast, see this on the Daily Caller: Claim: Obama campaign illegally solicited foreign donors via social media website

Also see this from Erick Erickson of Red State: I Donated to Barack Obama (not that I advocate Erickson’s methods, but it is interesting).
Click to expand...
Note below: Clearly the Obama campaign does not want to verify donations. From my own experience in setting up credit card payments for our clinic I learned a lot about security, verification etc I learned that we could save a SUBSTANTIAL amount by setting up an account that requires the CVV numer which of course we did. They are spending millions in order to have non-verified transactions.

Forgive my suspicion but given they demand the verification for merchandise…

Further the IRONY of Obama calling out the SCOTUS for the “allowing foreign interests to influence elections” should not be lost on anyone.

***three or four digit number generally imprinted on the back of the card” in order “to verify that the person executing the purchase physically possesses the card.”

GAI notes that the Obama campaign’s failure to use such security measures in its online donation system likely costs it “millions of dollars in additional fees” because “card processors charge higher transaction fees for campaigns that fail to use the CVV.”

The group estimates that Obama’s 2008 campaign, which raised over $500 million, likely “paid at least an additional $7.25 million in fees to the banks that it could have avoided if it were to have used the CVV,” assuming the campaign paid typical rates for processing credit card transactions.***
 
LisaA said:
Note below: Clearly the Obama campaign does not want to verify donations. From my own experience in setting up credit card payments for our clinic I learned a lot about security, verification etc I learned that we could save a SUBSTANTIAL amount by setting up an account that requires the CVV numer which of course we did. They are spending millions in order to have non-verified transactions.

Forgive my suspicion but given they demand the verification for merchandise…

Further the IRONY of Obama calling out the SCOTUS for the “allowing foreign interests to influence elections” should not be lost on anyone.

***three or four digit number generally imprinted on the back of the card” in order “to verify that the person executing the purchase physically possesses the card.”

GAI notes that the Obama campaign’s failure to use such security measures in its online donation system likely costs it “millions of dollars in additional fees” because “card processors charge higher transaction fees for campaigns that fail to use the CVV.”

The group estimates that Obama’s 2008 campaign, which raised over $500 million, likely “paid at least an additional $7.25 million in fees to the banks that it could have avoided if it were to have used the CVV,” assuming the campaign paid typical rates for processing credit card transactions.***
Click to expand...
I caught that bold, too!

Sounds intentional, to me.
 
From Breitbart:

Obama Campaign Scrambles to Kill Illegal Online Fundraising Story

Minutes after Newsweek published a story on the threat of illegal foreign and fraudulent online campaign donations late Monday afternoon, the Obama campaign struck back hard with a response smearing one of the article’s authors and offered an anemic defense of its online fundraising operations.
It is double-plus ungood crimespeak that this oldthink story (online fundraising story) should appear on the telescreen. Obviously something from Emmanuel Goldstein. It must go into the memory hole.
 
markomalley said:
From Breitbart:

Obama Campaign Scrambles to Kill Illegal Online Fundraising Story

Minutes after Newsweek published a story on the threat of illegal foreign and fraudulent online campaign donations late Monday afternoon, the Obama campaign struck back hard with a response smearing one of the article’s authors and offered an anemic defense of its online fundraising operations.
It is double-plus ungood crimespeak that this oldthink story (online fundraising story) should appear on the telescreen. Obviously something from Emmanuel Goldstein. It must go into the memory hole.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the author they smeared was the one who outed all of the insider trading in Congress. Both sides of the aisle were culpable in this scandal and Schweitzer didn’t spare either party. Apparently he’s also called out Romney to release names of his Super PAC donors. Calling him a "right wing hack’ is sort of typical of their defense.

There were many stories of “curious” donations to Obama’s 08 campaign including a six figure donation from a woman who hadn’t made any contributions to Obama. This one doesn’t pass the smell test either. Not getting the security codes means they don’t mind paying huge unnecessary fees to hide the donors.

But again is anyone surprised?🤷
Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top