4 ms·

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

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.

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.