3 ms·

SBF spent 99.9% Dems and 0.1% Repub, according to your first link. You’re telling untrue facts according to your own sources — to minimize that the second larg

SBF spent 99.9% Dems and 0.1% Repub, according to your first link. You’re telling untrue facts according to your own sources — to minimize that the second largest Dem donor was a criminal stealing customer funds. Your comparison to Repubs is unfounded as none of their donors engaged in organized crime like SBF. Why are you spreading election misinformation?

spywaregorilla 4y ago
Ok buddy, look, one. You're right, it was a mistake. I misremembered something. I cited a source containing the right information and you pointed it out. Thanks. > Why are you spreading election misinformation? Two, Fuck off. This is needlessly passive aggressive. There is no need to throw in a worst-faith assessment of my motivations for posting all of this.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
reallythisguy 4y ago
This is more misinformation than the OP - there's more criminal money flowing into republicans by far, the below is just two examples (edit: two examples) from 10 seconds of searching for an article: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/20/gop-operatives-charged-funneling-russian-money-trump-rnc-513219 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/20/gop-operatives-char... https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-gop-donors-charged-in-investment-fraud-scheme-involving-illegal-contributions-11658174558 https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-gop-donors-charged-in-in... Even if talking just about people who are later found to have acted improperly, look at the CEO of FTX Ryan D. Salame, one of the largest Republican donors.
- mcrad 4y ago
  10 seconds of searching is where your argument falls apart, good luck with that. Anyway you are justifying this destructive behavior with more destructive behavior? It's no wonder you don't take more time to understand these things.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    I'll reiterate my comment to the original OP. Billionaires donating may generally be legally doing their business. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical or completely legal. If the entire billionaire system is corrupt, pointing all fingers at the corrupt Dem party when the Repub party is just as corrupt, if not more so, is weird, uniformed, and biased. Are you spreading election misinformation?
    - mcrad 4y ago
      It's not illegal but totally immoral to call out corruption only when it's who you previously deemed your political opponent.
  - reallythisguy 4y ago
    No one is justifying any behavior, criminal activity is criminal activity and the money needs to be out of politics in general. My comment is only calling out the commenter for making an obviously biased statement without even taking half a second to see if it's even conceivably true. The argument falls apart because two examples were quick to find? If all you can complain about is that it was too easy to find two examples to counteract the commenters clearly partisan and facetious claim then it sounds like you're grasping at straws. Please enlighten us on how we should have spent more than 10 seconds to understand that there are actually no republican donors engaged in criminal activity and the commenter was just making a factual statement we obviously don't understand.
    - mcrad 4y ago
      Nobody is unbiased in their opinions about what politicians do with the money, nor should they be. But if you really want to spend more than 10 seconds I'd say reference something more academic that what google spits out as fast facts. Yes, I am partial to books and history in assessing this situation, and see no issue with complaining about you minions taking their latest "internet research" so seriously.
skinnymuch 4y ago
Those other billionaires donating a ton may be mostly legally doing their huge business. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical or completely legal. If the entire system is corrupt, pointing all fingers at the corrupt Dem party when the Repub part is just as corrupt if not more so is weird, uniformed, and biased. Are you spreading election misinformation?
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Excusing criminality by saying “well, legitimate business isn’t totally ethical!” is nonsense gaslighting.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >Excusing criminality by saying “well, legitimate business isn’t totally ethical!” is nonsense gaslighting. I think the point was not whataboutism, but rather that the sewer of filthy lucre that we call "campaign finance," regardless of who gives/receives such funds, creates perverse incentives in the political system and should be discouraged/done away with. That's not a partisan take IMHO.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Who is excusing it? I'm not! You have to lock SBF up assuming everything we have heard so far is close to the truth. I want the lot of billionaire donors to have their and their company's finances and political involvement investigated and made transparent for the public. Keep them all accountable. But ofc SBF is worse than all the rest because of how bad his actions have been. The worst. But overall we shouldn't allow any one to have such outsized power. Don't make it legal to politically donate this much money to any one. On the other hand, you appear to be excusing the Republican donor's. Your comments are saying "go after this visibly criminal (according to our justice system) Democrat. Focus on that! Ignore all the republican [and other Democratic] ones". Being as partisan as can be. nobody9999 summarized my side perfectly as well.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Ok buddy, look, one. You're right, it was a mistake. I misremembered something. I cited a source containing the right information and you pointed it out. Thanks. > Why are you spreading election misinformation? Two, Fuck off. This is needlessly passive aggressive. There is no need to throw in a worst-faith assessment of my motivations for posting all of this.

zmgsabst 4y ago

reallythisguy 4y ago

This is more misinformation than the OP - there's more criminal money flowing into republicans by far, the below is just two examples (edit: two examples) from 10 seconds of searching for an article: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/20/gop-operatives-charged-funneling-russian-money-trump-rnc-513219 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/20/gop-operatives-char... https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-gop-donors-charged-in-investment-fraud-scheme-involving-illegal-contributions-11658174558 https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-gop-donors-charged-in-in... Even if talking just about people who are later found to have acted improperly, look at the CEO of FTX Ryan D. Salame, one of the largest Republican donors.

mcrad 4y ago
10 seconds of searching is where your argument falls apart, good luck with that. Anyway you are justifying this destructive behavior with more destructive behavior? It's no wonder you don't take more time to understand these things.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  I'll reiterate my comment to the original OP. Billionaires donating may generally be legally doing their business. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical or completely legal. If the entire billionaire system is corrupt, pointing all fingers at the corrupt Dem party when the Repub party is just as corrupt, if not more so, is weird, uniformed, and biased. Are you spreading election misinformation?
  - mcrad 4y ago
    It's not illegal but totally immoral to call out corruption only when it's who you previously deemed your political opponent.
- reallythisguy 4y ago
  No one is justifying any behavior, criminal activity is criminal activity and the money needs to be out of politics in general. My comment is only calling out the commenter for making an obviously biased statement without even taking half a second to see if it's even conceivably true. The argument falls apart because two examples were quick to find? If all you can complain about is that it was too easy to find two examples to counteract the commenters clearly partisan and facetious claim then it sounds like you're grasping at straws. Please enlighten us on how we should have spent more than 10 seconds to understand that there are actually no republican donors engaged in criminal activity and the commenter was just making a factual statement we obviously don't understand.
  - mcrad 4y ago
    Nobody is unbiased in their opinions about what politicians do with the money, nor should they be. But if you really want to spend more than 10 seconds I'd say reference something more academic that what google spits out as fast facts. Yes, I am partial to books and history in assessing this situation, and see no issue with complaining about you minions taking their latest "internet research" so seriously.

skinnymuch 4y ago

Those other billionaires donating a ton may be mostly legally doing their huge business. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical or completely legal. If the entire system is corrupt, pointing all fingers at the corrupt Dem party when the Repub part is just as corrupt if not more so is weird, uniformed, and biased. Are you spreading election misinformation?

zmgsabst 4y ago
Excusing criminality by saying “well, legitimate business isn’t totally ethical!” is nonsense gaslighting.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Excusing criminality by saying “well, legitimate business isn’t totally ethical!” is nonsense gaslighting. I think the point was not whataboutism, but rather that the sewer of filthy lucre that we call "campaign finance," regardless of who gives/receives such funds, creates perverse incentives in the political system and should be discouraged/done away with. That's not a partisan take IMHO.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Who is excusing it? I'm not! You have to lock SBF up assuming everything we have heard so far is close to the truth. I want the lot of billionaire donors to have their and their company's finances and political involvement investigated and made transparent for the public. Keep them all accountable. But ofc SBF is worse than all the rest because of how bad his actions have been. The worst. But overall we shouldn't allow any one to have such outsized power. Don't make it legal to politically donate this much money to any one. On the other hand, you appear to be excusing the Republican donor's. Your comments are saying "go after this visibly criminal (according to our justice system) Democrat. Focus on that! Ignore all the republican [and other Democratic] ones". Being as partisan as can be. nobody9999 summarized my side perfectly as well.