On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:14:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/2022 7:19 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:17:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2022 7:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:51:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug cartels
>>>>>>>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of the justice system under those installed in office by George Soros and Bill Gates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
>>>>>>>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She doesn't look very communist to me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2020/november/governor-stitt-appoints-district-attorney-for-okmulgee-and-mcint.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a Communist looks like this:
>>>>>> https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/chinese-woman-is-seen-having-her-wedding-photo-taken-on-the-news-photo/679739916
>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're in USA not china. Here's our local version:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/kim-foxx-faces-withering-criticism-amid-high-staff-turnover-at-states-attorneys-office/2965884/
>>>>
>>>> Yup, I read that but it is pretty ambiguous. All the people leaving
>>>> but no mention of their complaints except that "If you don’t do what’s
>>>> on her agenda, you find yourself in an awful experience"? What does
>>>> that mean? I tell you to mow the lawn and you sit on your arse instead
>>>> of mowing it and I "chew you out"? And the guy that said it wants to
>>>> "remain anonymous for fear of retaliation"? The guy quit last year so
>>>> what is this retaliation?
>>>>
>>>> Like much "news" very high in innuendo and very low in facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you probably haven't read the Chicago news every
>>> morning for the past several years of her tenure, you could
>>> just take my word on it.
>>>
>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2020/2/20/21146269/george-soros-kim-foxx-bill-conway-states-attorney
>>>
>>> https://johnkassnews.com/the-chicago-way-what-george-soros-and-kim-foxx-get-wrong-about-criminal-injustice-and-what-will-the-tribune-guild-do-about-soros-now/
>>>
>>> https://www.westernjournal.com/exposed-george-soros-donated-408k-kim-foxx-affiliated-pac/
>>>
>>> https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/05/kim-foxx-george-soros-favorite-prosecutor/
>>
>> I can remember back in the sixties calmly walking the streets of near
>> north-side Chicago, at night, with a friggen hayseed in my mouth.
>> Today I wouldn't do that without an armed guard.
>
>But to put that in context, you've also said that today you won't ride
>your tricycle on a countryside multi-use path without carrying a handgun.
>
>It's called paranoia.

<GRIN> I hope whoever it is that takes you on your tandem bike rides
has as much fun with you as I do.

Is it wrong for me to enjoy seeing how much my totally non-aggressive
self irritates people.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:47:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/2022 12:01 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:52:58 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 11:20:43 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 5:14:53 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 04:52:06 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:06:45 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whenever I see people my age or older defending the current Democrat
>>>>>>>> agenda of attacking police, turning criminals loose,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2022/08/12/trump-loyalists-calls-to-defund-the-fbi-and-other-hypocrisies/?sh=2e1e01431506
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and wanting men
>>>>>>>> competing in women's athletics, I wonder if they always wanted those
>>>>>>>> policies or if they just latched onto them after hearing/seeing
>>>>>>>> Democrat sponsored TV and internet. If they always wanted those
>>>>>>>> policies, why did they not speak up many years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, wait, I forgot, you choose not to discuss politics....
>>>>>> I should have said, I'll decide when I'll discuss politics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another of the stupid six heard from. This one hates America because he is the end of his line. There isn't a woman that would ever accept a moron for a husband
>>>> I don't really have a need to argue politics. It's pretty clear that
>>>> my side has already won the current circumstance.
>>>
>>> Sure kitty....just like trump won the last election....
>>
>>
>> Ok, make your pitch. See if you can convince me to vote for Charlie
>> Christ, or Val Demings.
>
>You choose not to discuss politics?

Sometimes... but sometimes it's too much fun to resist.. Like with
you...

>Liar and troll.

I keep thinking that I have to get away from the nonsense of this
group, but then Krygowski pops up and convinces me to hang around.

On 10/18/2022 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 5:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug
>>>>> cartels
>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>
>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are
>>>> from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of
>>>> the justice system under those installed in office by
>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates.
>>>>
>>> ??
>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
>>
>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the
>> elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
>
> How odd! George Will and others rejoiced when the Supreme
> Court said, in effect, money in elections counts as free
> speech. Citizens United wanted that ruling, and they're
> hardly a liberal group.
>

I have no idea about Mr Kunich's position (so I could not
possibly defend it, whatever that might be).

However, the large unions, notably the two teachers' unions,
have been seriously large (often #1 and #3) national
election contributors for many years. So is Sheldon Adelson.
Which are all fine with me. I happen to think that, as a
SCOTUS member once wrote, the solution to bad speech is more
speech.

Much is made of 'big money' as a bugaboo in elections but in
fact there are many players with many agenda with
spectacular instances of success and failure[1].

Note that 'campaign contributions' to a candidate are
regulated and reported publicly.

Educational and policy organizations spend a lot on
political campaigns (again every political flavor) but not
directly funding candidates, which is their right. Their
donors may remain unnamed under a wise and practical SCOTUS
ruling:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/

Which has a history of citation on RBT so I presume you are
familiar already but there's the link.

[1] The winning 2016 Presidential candidate was outspent by
roughly 2:1. There's your 'buy elections' test case.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/18/2022 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug
>>>>>> cartels
>>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are
>>>>> from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of
>>>>> the justice system under those installed in office by
>>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates.
>>>>>
>>>> ??
>>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
>>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
>>>
>>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the
>>> elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
>>
>> How odd! George Will and others rejoiced when the Supreme
>> Court said, in effect, money in elections counts as free
>> speech. Citizens United wanted that ruling, and they're
>> hardly a liberal group.
>>
>
> I have no idea about Mr Kunich's position (so I could not possibly
> defend it, whatever that might be).
>
> However, the large unions, notably the two teachers' unions, have been
> seriously large (often #1 and #3) national election contributors for
> many years. So is Sheldon Adelson.  Which are all fine with me. I happen
> to think that, as a SCOTUS member once wrote, the solution to bad speech
> is more speech.
>
> Much is made of 'big money' as a bugaboo in elections but in fact there
> are many players with many agenda with spectacular instances of success
> and failure[1].
>
> Note that 'campaign contributions' to a candidate are regulated and
> reported publicly.
>
> Educational and policy organizations spend a lot on political campaigns
> (again every political flavor) but not directly funding candidates,
> which is their right.  Their donors may remain unnamed under a wise and
> practical SCOTUS ruling:
>
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/
>
> Which has a history of citation on RBT so I presume you are familiar
> already but there's the link.
>
> [1] The winning 2016 Presidential candidate was outspent by roughly 2:1.
> There's your 'buy elections' test case.

Do you suppose Tom will read and understand your point?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 8:20:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 5:14:53 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 04:52:06 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:06:45 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Whenever I see people my age or older defending the current Democrat
> >> >> agenda of attacking police, turning criminals loose,
> >> >
> >> >Yup: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2022/08/12/trump-loyalists-calls-to-defund-the-fbi-and-other-hypocrisies/?sh=2e1e01431506
> >> >
> >> >> and wanting men
> >> >> competing in women's athletics, I wonder if they always wanted those
> >> >> policies or if they just latched onto them after hearing/seeing
> >> >> Democrat sponsored TV and internet. If they always wanted those
> >> >> policies, why did they not speak up many years ago.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, wait, I forgot, you choose not to discuss politics....
> >> I should have said, I'll decide when I'll discuss politics.
> >
> >Another of the stupid six heard from. This one hates America because he is the end of his line. There isn't a woman that would ever accept a moron for a husband
> I don't really have a need to argue politics. It's pretty clear that
> my side has already won the current circumstance.
Our side.
But simply saying that is talking politics.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 10:05:42 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:14:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 10/18/2022 7:19 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:17:33 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/17/2022 7:40 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:24 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:51:53 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug cartels
> >>>>>>>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of the justice system under those installed in office by George Soros and Bill Gates.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
> >>>>>>>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> She doesn't look very communist to me:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2020/november/governor-stitt-appoints-district-attorney-for-okmulgee-and-mcint.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And a Communist looks like this:
> >>>>>> https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/chinese-woman-is-seen-having-her-wedding-photo-taken-on-the-news-photo/679739916
> >>>>>> (:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We're in USA not china. Here's our local version:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/kim-foxx-faces-withering-criticism-amid-high-staff-turnover-at-states-attorneys-office/2965884/
> >>>>
> >>>> Yup, I read that but it is pretty ambiguous. All the people leaving
> >>>> but no mention of their complaints except that "If you don’t do what’s
> >>>> on her agenda, you find yourself in an awful experience"? What does
> >>>> that mean? I tell you to mow the lawn and you sit on your arse instead
> >>>> of mowing it and I "chew you out"? And the guy that said it wants to
> >>>> "remain anonymous for fear of retaliation"? The guy quit last year so
> >>>> what is this retaliation?
> >>>>
> >>>> Like much "news" very high in innuendo and very low in facts.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Since you probably haven't read the Chicago news every
> >>> morning for the past several years of her tenure, you could
> >>> just take my word on it.
> >>>
> >>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2020/2/20/21146269/george-soros-kim-foxx-bill-conway-states-attorney
> >>>
> >>> https://johnkassnews.com/the-chicago-way-what-george-soros-and-kim-foxx-get-wrong-about-criminal-injustice-and-what-will-the-tribune-guild-do-about-soros-now/
> >>>
> >>> https://www.westernjournal.com/exposed-george-soros-donated-408k-kim-foxx-affiliated-pac/
> >>>
> >>> https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/05/kim-foxx-george-soros-favorite-prosecutor/
> >>
> >> I can remember back in the sixties calmly walking the streets of near
> >> north-side Chicago, at night, with a friggen hayseed in my mouth.
> >> Today I wouldn't do that without an armed guard.
> >
> >But to put that in context, you've also said that today you won't ride
> >your tricycle on a countryside multi-use path without carrying a handgun..
> >
> >It's called paranoia.
> <GRIN> I hope whoever it is that takes you on your tandem bike rides
> has as much fun with you as I do.
>
> Is it wrong for me to enjoy seeing how much my totally non-aggressive
> self irritates people.

Frank is nasty tempered because he spent his entire life as a failure. The succ4ess of anyone else inflames his wounded pride.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 11:17:40 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/17/2022 5:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug
> >>>>> cartels
> >>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
> >>>>
> >>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are
> >>>> from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of
> >>>> the justice system under those installed in office by
> >>>> George Soros and Bill Gates.
> >>>>
> >>> ??
> >>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
> >>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
> >>
> >> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the
> >> elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
> >
> > How odd! George Will and others rejoiced when the Supreme
> > Court said, in effect, money in elections counts as free
> > speech. Citizens United wanted that ruling, and they're
> > hardly a liberal group.
> >
> I have no idea about Mr Kunich's position (so I could not
> possibly defend it, whatever that might be).
>
> However, the large unions, notably the two teachers' unions,
> have been seriously large (often #1 and #3) national
> election contributors for many years. So is Sheldon Adelson.
> Which are all fine with me. I happen to think that, as a
> SCOTUS member once wrote, the solution to bad speech is more
> speech.
>
> Much is made of 'big money' as a bugaboo in elections but in
> fact there are many players with many agenda with
> spectacular instances of success and failure[1].
>
> Note that 'campaign contributions' to a candidate are
> regulated and reported publicly.
>
> Educational and policy organizations spend a lot on
> political campaigns (again every political flavor) but not
> directly funding candidates, which is their right. Their
> donors may remain unnamed under a wise and practical SCOTUS
> ruling:
>
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/
>
> Which has a history of citation on RBT so I presume you are
> familiar already but there's the link.
>
> [1] The winning 2016 Presidential candidate was outspent by
> roughly 2:1. There's your 'buy elections' test case.

I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it. Do you actually believe the number of people asking for donations? And NOT they have your credit card number from your last donation and are simply taking it. You have to keep your eyes on you credit account all of the time. Someone posing as McAfee just billed my card for $260+' And now they have software packages that you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CLICK ON to accept.

I also think that the nightly news that is entirely left wing should be forced to report accurately. You don't have Freedom of the Press if all you're getting is one side composed almost entirely of lies. My younger brother still swears that he heard Trump say that you should drink bleach to cure covid-19. This was a purposeful and quite effective lie from the Slime Stream Media.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:14:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/2022 7:19 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:17:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2022 7:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:51:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug cartels
>>>>>>>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of the justice system under those installed in office by George Soros and Bill Gates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
>>>>>>>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She doesn't look very communist to me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2020/november/governor-stitt-appoints-district-attorney-for-okmulgee-and-mcint.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a Communist looks like this:
>>>>>> https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/chinese-woman-is-seen-having-her-wedding-photo-taken-on-the-news-photo/679739916
>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're in USA not china. Here's our local version:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/kim-foxx-faces-withering-criticism-amid-high-staff-turnover-at-states-attorneys-office/2965884/
>>>>
>>>> Yup, I read that but it is pretty ambiguous. All the people leaving
>>>> but no mention of their complaints except that "If you don’t do what’s
>>>> on her agenda, you find yourself in an awful experience"? What does
>>>> that mean? I tell you to mow the lawn and you sit on your arse instead
>>>> of mowing it and I "chew you out"? And the guy that said it wants to
>>>> "remain anonymous for fear of retaliation"? The guy quit last year so
>>>> what is this retaliation?
>>>>
>>>> Like much "news" very high in innuendo and very low in facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you probably haven't read the Chicago news every
>>> morning for the past several years of her tenure, you could
>>> just take my word on it.
>>>
>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2020/2/20/21146269/george-soros-kim-foxx-bill-conway-states-attorney
>>>
>>> https://johnkassnews.com/the-chicago-way-what-george-soros-and-kim-foxx-get-wrong-about-criminal-injustice-and-what-will-the-tribune-guild-do-about-soros-now/
>>>
>>> https://www.westernjournal.com/exposed-george-soros-donated-408k-kim-foxx-affiliated-pac/
>>>
>>> https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/05/kim-foxx-george-soros-favorite-prosecutor/
>>
>> I can remember back in the sixties calmly walking the streets of near
>> north-side Chicago, at night, with a friggen hayseed in my mouth.
>> Today I wouldn't do that without an armed guard.
>
>But to put that in context, you've also said that today you won't ride
>your tricycle on a countryside multi-use path without carrying a handgun.
>
>It's called paranoia.

I don't bother with even reading the tricycle guy's posts but that one
is a real winner... what is a hayseed?

I know that the term can refer to someone from rural America and, of
course, it can actually be a seed from a grass plant. Are we to deduce
that the trike guy is walking up and down the streets with a farmer in
his mouth? That sounds kind of queer (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:41:37 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:14:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 10/18/2022 7:19 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:17:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:51:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:41:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 3:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad things can happen when trying to steal from drug cartels
>>>>>>>>>>>> or other criminals. I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the only repercussions from committing a crime are from other criminals, they have absolutely no fear of the justice system under those installed in office by George Soros and Bill Gates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>> In Okmulgee Oklahoma?
>>>>>>>>>> As they say, 'it ain't New York'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> George Soros and Bill Gates have BOUGHT both sides of the elections. They intend to get their way PERIOD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She doesn't look very communist to me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2020/november/governor-stitt-appoints-district-attorney-for-okmulgee-and-mcint.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a Communist looks like this:
>>>>>>> https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/chinese-woman-is-seen-having-her-wedding-photo-taken-on-the-news-photo/679739916
>>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're in USA not china. Here's our local version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/kim-foxx-faces-withering-criticism-amid-high-staff-turnover-at-states-attorneys-office/2965884/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, I read that but it is pretty ambiguous. All the people leaving
>>>>> but no mention of their complaints except that "If you don’t do what’s
>>>>> on her agenda, you find yourself in an awful experience"? What does
>>>>> that mean? I tell you to mow the lawn and you sit on your arse instead
>>>>> of mowing it and I "chew you out"? And the guy that said it wants to
>>>>> "remain anonymous for fear of retaliation"? The guy quit last year so
>>>>> what is this retaliation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Like much "news" very high in innuendo and very low in facts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you probably haven't read the Chicago news every
>>>> morning for the past several years of her tenure, you could
>>>> just take my word on it.
>>>>
>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2020/2/20/21146269/george-soros-kim-foxx-bill-conway-states-attorney
>>>>
>>>> https://johnkassnews.com/the-chicago-way-what-george-soros-and-kim-foxx-get-wrong-about-criminal-injustice-and-what-will-the-tribune-guild-do-about-soros-now/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.westernjournal.com/exposed-george-soros-donated-408k-kim-foxx-affiliated-pac/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/05/kim-foxx-george-soros-favorite-prosecutor/
>>>
>>> I can remember back in the sixties calmly walking the streets of near
>>> north-side Chicago, at night, with a friggen hayseed in my mouth.
>>> Today I wouldn't do that without an armed guard.
>>
>>But to put that in context, you've also said that today you won't ride
>>your tricycle on a countryside multi-use path without carrying a handgun.
>>
>>It's called paranoia.
>
>I don't bother with even reading the tricycle guy's posts but that one
>is a real winner...

Try to keep up with what's going on..
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime

>what is a hayseed?

You don't have google?

https://tinyurl.com/2df9agjs

>I know that the term can refer to someone from rural America and, of
>course, it can actually be a seed from a grass plant. Are we to deduce
>that the trike guy is walking up and down the streets with a farmer in
>his mouth? That sounds kind of queer (:-)
>

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? Just curious, cause you've never
mentioned.

On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.

Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/

And there was this, closely related:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>
>Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>
>And there was this, closely related:
>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme

Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>
>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>
>> And there was this, closely related:
>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>
> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?

I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
"Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
ends up in the suspect's pocket.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/18/2022 7:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>
>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>
>> And there was this, closely related:
>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>
> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>

Yes. And No. Sorta. Maybe. Start here:

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/fundraising-campaign/

more:
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

One might contribute to a campaign organization (effectively
'to the candidate' which funds have spending rules, see
above) and/or to the party, and/or to a 501c3 entity
generally supportive but not directly linked to, nor
'coordinated with', a particular candidate or party.

I have contributed to many candidates over the years,
several 'educational entities' but never to any Party
apparatus.

For an example of that. Mr McConnell has moved significant
funds from Blake Masters in Arizona who is in a very tight
but winnable race, in favor of RINO Ms Murkowski against
much more conservative Ms Tsubaka (also a Republican) in the
runoff in Alaska. This borders on malpractice as a party
leader but it's the usual racket for interparty gamesmanship.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/18/2022 7:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it
>>>> is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a
>>>> sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to
>>>> campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>>
>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>
>>>
>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>
>>
>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or
>> to the
>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>
> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I
> suspect "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me
> money" are both legal. The problem arises when someone gives
> to the defense fund, but the money ends up in the suspect's
> pocket.
>

Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to
$16,000 per year with no tax consequences to either. Unless
there's a contract, the receiver can do whatever he damned
well pleases with that, or any other unregulated money.

Political campaign organizations are different from 'defense
funds' or 'gofundme' or informal charity gifts. Every
transaction has to be reported to FEC and donors names are
public record.

Donations to educational entities are not part of the FEC's
purview and so are treated as any other charity in which
donor names are confidential. Organized charities do have
IRS reporting requirements but the rules are much less
stringent than for political campaign organizations.

Warning! Reading tax law can cause drowsiness:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

And if you read the entire section, which would take quite a
while, you won't understand it until you read a good survey
of case law for every phrase, sentence fragment and term in
the code. Very complex area.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/18/2022 8:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 7:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it
>>>> is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a
>>>> sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to
>>>> campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>>
>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>
>>>
>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>
>>
>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or
>> to the
>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>
>
> Yes. And No. Sorta. Maybe. Start here:
>
> https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/fundraising-campaign/
>
>
> more:
> https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/
>
>
>
> One might contribute to a campaign organization (effectively
> 'to the candidate' which funds have spending rules, see
> above) and/or to the party, and/or to a 501c3 entity
> generally supportive but not directly linked to, nor
> 'coordinated with', a particular candidate or party.
>
> I have contributed to many candidates over the years,
> several 'educational entities' but never to any Party
> apparatus.
>
> For an example of that. Mr McConnell has moved significant
> funds from Blake Masters in Arizona who is in a very tight
> but winnable race, in favor of RINO Ms Murkowski against
> much more conservative Ms Tsubaka (also a Republican) in the
> runoff in Alaska. This borders on malpractice as a party
> leader but it's the usual racket for interparty gamesmanship.
>

Whoops. should be 'intraparty'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:34:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>>
>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>
>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>
>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>
>I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>"Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>ends up in the suspect's pocket.

Well, when the defense, or whatever, is over and done with what should
be done with any remaining funds?
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>
>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>
>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>
>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>
> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
> ends up in the suspect's pocket.

In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
benefit, and that political parties count as charities.

Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.

On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.

Rolf

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>
>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>
>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>
>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>
>In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>
>Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>
>On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>
>Rolf

Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them. The further up
the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
become. Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.

The Founding fathers made a critical mistake by not constitutionally
dictating term limits for all Federal elected officials. Too late
now.

Am 19.10.2022 um 12:31 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>>
>>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>
>>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>>
>>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>>> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>>> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>>> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>>
>> In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>> benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>>
>> Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>> private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>>
>> On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>> would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>> if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>
> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them.

It might be necessary to re-phrase to "US Politicians". The next
obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
re-elected to the next Parliament.

> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.

I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected. It
is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
room rate.

> The further up
> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
> become.

I've read (Science fiction) books where US senators muse about 'doesn't
metter who's president under my house leadership, presidents come and
go, I'll still lead the house in 10 years time'.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 19.10.2022 um 12:31 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>>
>>>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>>>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>>>> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>>>> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>>>> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>>>
>>> In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>>> benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>>>
>>> Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>>> private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>>> would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>>> if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>>
>> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
>> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them.
>
>It might be necessary to re-phrase to "US Politicians".

No, that would not be necessary.

>The next
>obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>re-elected to the next Parliament.

<eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...

> > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>
>I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.

No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.

It
>is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>room rate.

The security people select their own hotels.

>> The further up
>> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
>> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
>> become.
>
>I've read (Science fiction) books where US senators muse about 'doesn't
>metter who's president under my house leadership, presidents come and
>go, I'll still lead the house in 10 years time'.

I've read (Science fiction) books where space aliens come to Earth and
are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I stopped reading
that kind of garbage somewhere around the age of nine.

Am 19.10.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 19.10.2022 um 12:31 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>>>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>>>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>>>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>>>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>>>>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>>>>> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>>>>> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>>>>> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>>>>
>>>> In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>>>> benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>>>>
>>>> Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>>>> private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>>>> would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>>>> if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>>>
>>> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
>>> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them.
>>
>> It might be necessary to re-phrase to "US Politicians".
>
> No, that would not be necessary.
>
>> The next
>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>
> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>
>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>
>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>
> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>
> It
>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>> room rate.
>
> The security people select their own hotels.
>
>>> The further up
>>> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
>>> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
>>> become.
>>
>> I've read (Science fiction) books where US senators muse about 'doesn't
>> metter who's president under my house leadership, presidents come and
>> go, I'll still lead the house in 10 years time'.
>
> I've read (Science fiction) books where space aliens come to Earth and
> are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I stopped reading
> that kind of garbage somewhere around the age of nine.

SO why are you consuming 'Fox Fiction'?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:52:22 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 19.10.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 12:31 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>>>>>>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>>>>>>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>>>>>>>>> the people asking for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>>>>>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>>>>>> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>>>>>> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>>>>>> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>>>>> benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>>>>> private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>>>>> would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>>>>> if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>>>>
>>>> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
>>>> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them.
>>>
>>> It might be necessary to re-phrase to "US Politicians".
>>
>> No, that would not be necessary.
>>
>>> The next
>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>
>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>
>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>>
>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>>
>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>>
>> It
>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>>> room rate.
>>
>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>
>>>> The further up
>>>> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
>>>> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
>>>> become.
>>>
>>> I've read (Science fiction) books where US senators muse about 'doesn't
>>> metter who's president under my house leadership, presidents come and
>>> go, I'll still lead the house in 10 years time'.
>>
>> I've read (Science fiction) books where space aliens come to Earth and
>> are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I stopped reading
>> that kind of garbage somewhere around the age of nine.
>
>SO why are you consuming 'Fox Fiction'?

So...?? why are you changing the subject?

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >The next
> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>
> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...

I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540

Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.

> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> >
> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> It
> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> >room rate.
> The security people select their own hotels.

oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise. This is what Rolf is referring to:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/

I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.

Am 19.10.2022 um 16:36 schrieb funkma...@hotmail.com:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>> The next
>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>
>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>
> I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>
> Understanding such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.

One interesting tidbit is that these people did not break any law:

Giving money (even free concert tickets) to people in public office is
bribery, illegal for both the donor and the receiver but
the only way giving money to Politicians is illegal in Germany is if
part of the deal is that the Politician shall vote in a certain way in
future.

Rolf

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> >The next
>> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>
>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>
>I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>
>Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>
>> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>> >
>> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>> It
>> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>> >room rate.
>> The security people select their own hotels.
>
>oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.

The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?

> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/

<chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
the funeral in the UK.

Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,

Biden was in London for one night.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/

>I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.

<Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
at his own hotels?