Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (18764)	6/28/2012 3:31:22 AM
From: mistermj	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

Illustrated: Inside the Obama 2008 Money-Laundering Machine A year in advance of the momentous 2012 elections, it's worth revisiting the 2008 campaign that brought Barack Obama to power. In particular, the Obama campaign took an unprecedented series of steps to allow illegal campaign contributions and electronic money laundering Imagine a campaign website that intentionally turned off all credit-card security, which allowed the entry of fake names and addresses for donations. Obama's 2008 fundraising website intentionally allowed this to occur. Imagine a campaign that accepted made-up credit-card numbers, which were probably tried one after another until valid card numbers were found. Obama's 2008 fundraising website intentionally allowed this to occur. Or a campaign that retained forged computer addresses for its donations instead of the addresses of the real donors. Obama's 2008 fundraising website intentionally allowed this to occur. Or a campaign that accepted untraceable prepaid cash cards that could easily have been used to evade contribution limits or mask contributor identities. Obama's 2008 fundraising website intentionally allowed this to occur. Or a campaign that secretly shared donor lists with Project Vote and ACORN, the latter a group reportedly under a RICO investigation for multi-state vote fraud involving hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations and other misdeeds. Obama's 2008 fundraising operation allegedly did just that. Now imagine hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed, suspect donations orchestrated by foreign nationals and other persons unknown. Obama's 2008 fundraising website intentionally allowed this sort of activity to occur. Roughly two-thirds of Barack Obama’s record haul derived from a website that intentionally disabled all security checks that prevent basic fraud. In other words, his website facilitated crooked donations complete with fake names, phony addresses, no donation limits, untraceable cards and bogus computer addresses. Let me repeat that last point. The Obama campaign's website intentionally allowed the use of fake computer addresses (known in the tech world as IP addresses). In my opinion, there is only one reason a website would allow the submission of a fake IP address: money-laundering. Logging of the true IP address would mean that the real source (including the city and country) of the contribution could be traced. Allowing a fake address to be logged instead would prevent authorities from ascertaining the true origin of the donation. These deliberate steps permitted the Obama campaign to accept illegal co-mingled funds, illegal foreign contributions and illegal structured donations. In 2012, I urge you to be on the look-out for this kind of diabolical rule-breaking as a desperate Democrat Party scrabbles to hold onto power. directorblue.blogspot.com

To: koan who wrote (18764)	6/28/2012 9:13:18 AM
From: sm1th	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

And 90% of all elections are won by who has the most money. 90% of elections are won by incumbents.

To: koan who wrote (18764)	7/3/2012 9:08:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Adelson said he would spend 100 million. That's a lot less than a billion. And 90% of all elections are won by who has the most money. Not so sure about that, but whatever the exact percentage is your correct that having more money is a definite advantage. Of course people who have the most support and the most committed support, and most optimistic support (if you think your guy is doomed to lose, your not likely to send a big check) also have an advantage in getting the most money, so getting the most money is partially a sign of other support, and partially a sign of thinking the candidate might be able to win. This is hardly simply "money produces victories", and it becomes less so as the amount spent by both sides go up. You have $50mil and your opponent has $1mil? All else being equal you are very likely to win. You have $300mil and he has $100 mil? He has a shot. Lack of money means lack of being able to get your message out (except to a certain extent for incumbents, who can use their office to get their message out, but incumbents usually have money.) Free speech? That is not the issue here. Sure it is. Both with candidates being able to raise money (you can't get your message out if you can't raise funds), and even more directly with independent expenditures (if your not allowed to spend your own money on getting your message out, your free speech is clearly and dramatically infringed on). How about foreign control of our government? Or control by billionairs and large corporations. How about extra-terrestrial control of our government. Its only slightly less likely.

To: koan who wrote (18764)	7/4/2012 12:47:41 AM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"Adelson said he would spend 100 million. He would spend a billion in a heart beat if Israel asked him to and they might! And remember foreign governments can spend and we wouldn't know it. Why wouldn't Israel spend a billion to get the US support? " How much has George Soros already spent? Your mantra sounds one sided to me, but of course nothing in the democrat talking points don't say anything negative about good old George. How many countries has George brought down? lj