18
   

DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 01:29 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
You made quite a few definitive statements on priors for something you now say "presumably."


Sigh, you don't seem to read what I say very carefully. Those were not statements about whether or not the DNC could have caught previous breaches. I presume they can but cannot know due to the proprietary nature of these programs.

This is the first comment I made in this thread about the DNC ability to detect this kind of incident in the 08 campaign, I've not made definitive statements about this ability and you are conflating different statements i have made to try to illustrate inconsistency.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 07:06 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

If a football game can rule your life like that, you're projecting your emptiness on me. Own your own misery.


Come out of that dark hell in which you live, Lash. Come out into the sunshine once in a while. It won't hurt.

I do not dislike you for your incessant negativism...I pity you.


Lash
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 07:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
You have such complete intolerance for different political opinions that you suggest suicide to someone.

Feel free never to respond to my posts. You aren't the kind of person I want to associate with.
Frank Apisa
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 07:29 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

You have such complete intolerance for different political opinions that you suggest suicide to someone.

Feel free never to respond to my posts. You aren't the kind of person I want to associate with.


I will continue to respond to your posts...and I consider the fact that you do not consider me to be someone you want to associate with to be one of the nicest things you've ever said to me.


Thank you.

You are a depressingly negative cry-baby who seems determined only to see the bad in life...and equally determined to spread that negative perception to everyone possible.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 08:11 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Sigh, you don't seem to read what I say very carefully. Those were not statements about whether or not the DNC could have caught previous breaches. I presume they can but cannot know due to the proprietary nature of these programs.



If we don't know whether the DNC caught those priors, then we don't know if they ignored them. Whether they could have caught them is really not the point. If they caught them and ignored them, then Sander's complaint has a leg to stand on, if they never caught them (whether could have or not)then they could hardly ignore something they never knew. This point is the only point I have been trying (not very good)to make.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 01:06 pm
@revelette2,
Fair enough, though not having blocked previous instances may indicate a difference in their vigilance for catching some campaigns versus others I do agree with you that if we do not know if they were aware of the previous instances then we cannot say that they are knowingly treating the campaigns differently.

However if the Sanders campaign knew of the previous breaches (as they mention in their lawsuit) I'm not sure how that could happen without the DNC also becoming aware (though I concede that the awareness might have come long after the fact).

Ultimately though, this question is moot for me once I read the contract details. The very same contracts that disallow the Sanders campaign from seeing certain data prohibits them from suspending any campaign the way they did with Sanders and that tipped me over personally into considering their action incorrect (by their very own rules).
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 03:08 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
The very same contracts that disallow the Sanders campaign from seeing certain data prohibits them from suspending any campaign the way they did with Sanders and that tipped me over personally into considering their action incorrect (by their very own rules).


I understand and agree, not sure how they are going to get around that.

Quote:
though not having blocked previous instances may indicate a difference in their vigilance for catching some campaigns versus others


From what I understand some candidate alerted the DNC to the problem of the glitch that day, probably after they were alerted, that was probably when they realized the Sanders campaign improperly accessed the Clinton files. (my guess)

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 04:27 pm
Thank you. Craven previously pointed out my error.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:00 pm
I don't think it matter one iota as to who will win the Dem nomination, but I am enjoying the dust-up.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Hello Finn
Is there a GOP figure you'd like to see as the party's candidate?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:33 pm
@blatham,
Hi blatham

None of them are my perfect candidate, but when are any?

Putting aside electability, I will be content if any of the following win the nomination:

Rubio
Fiorina
Christie
Bush

I think Kasich might make a good president but, personally, he drives me nuts.

I think Carson is a good and decent man but I think he might be overwhelmed by the job.

From a electability standpoint, the only person I think can beat Clinton is Rubio so he's my choice.

The only one who I would hate to see win is Trump.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I am too, sort of. I may well be sorry later.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Thanks for the answer. Appreciated.

I concur re Rubio as biggest threat to my side electorally. Cruz doesn't appear on your list. In terms of personality and ideology, he is the fellow who scares me most imagining him in the WH.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 06:32 pm
@blatham,
Can you expand on Cruz?
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 06:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I deem him a sociopath.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 07:08 pm
@blatham,
The only difference between Cruz and Trump is that Trump has more charisma.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 07:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Now, there is a left handed compliment - if you have two left hands.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 09:29 pm
@revelette2,
I understand you fine Rev. Your problem is trying to educate people who dont want to be educated. They prefer their opinion to fact. And they love to claim one said things they dident say.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 09:48 am
@blatham,
Quote:
I concur re Rubio as biggest threat to my side electorally


Rubio does have a money problem which Clinton will exploit big time.

Quote:
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio waved off a question about his economic smarts during the latest Republican presidential debate, saying stories about his personal financial decisions weren’t worth discussing.

At the Oct. 28, 2015, debate in Boulder, Colo., CNBC moderator Becky Quick asked Rubio how qualified he felt to guide national fiscal policy when he’d had so many money problems himself.

"Sen. Rubio, you yourself have said that you've had issues. You have a lack of bookkeeping skills," Quick said, quoting Rubio’s 2012 book An American Son before listing several examples. "You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money. You faced foreclosure on a second home that you bought. And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That's something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties.

"In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and the wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?" she asked.

Rubio’s response was to dismiss all of Quick’s examples as partisan smear tactics.

"Well, you just listed a litany of discredited attacks from Democrats and my political opponents, and I'm not gonna waste 60 seconds detailing them all," he said. He then went on to detail his blue-collar upbringing with immigrant parents.

The response made us pause, because we wondered what had been "discredited" about Rubio’s widely reported financial mishaps. In this context, "discredited" means the things Quick said are not true or accurate.

Rubio’s campaign did not respond to our requests for comment, but we’ll take them one at a time and explain what happened:

"You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money." Years before Rubio became speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in 2006, he created two political committees to pay for travel and other expenses.

A 2010 Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald investigation found he failed to disclose paying $34,000 in expenses, including $7,000 to himself. He paid his wife Jeanette, who was treasurer of one of the committees, $5,700 for "gas and meals." Rubio also gave relatives another $14,000 and charged $51,000 in travel expenses to his own credit cards.

Speaking of credit cards: In 2005, the Republican Party of Florida gave him an American Express for expenses. Rubio charged thousands of dollars’ worth of restaurant meals while his meals in Tallahassee were being covered by taxpayers as part of being in the state House.

Rubio routinely used the party’s card to pay personal expenses, which he later repaid. Those included a rental car, repairs to his personal vehicle, flights to Tallahassee, a family reunion trip and paver work to his home.

In all, he spent more than $100,000 between November 2006 and November 2008. He didn’t release disclosures prior to that. The Florida Commission on Ethics in 2012 dismissed a citizen complaint that had been filed during Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign.

Rubio wrote in his book that the expenses were the result of simple mix-ups. "For example, I pulled the wrong card from my wallet to pay for pavers," he wrote. Another time, "my travel agent mistakenly used the card to pay for a family reunion in Georgia."

"Each time, I identified the charges and paid the costs myself, directly to American Express. The Republican Party of Florida didn't pay a single one of them. Nevertheless, in hindsight, I wish that none of them had ever been charged."

Quick’s description of these events is accurate.

"You faced foreclosure on a second home that you bought." In 2005, Rubio bought a house in Tallahassee with then-state Rep. David Rivera for $135,000. The pair used the home while in town on state business.

Foreclosure proceedings on the Tallahassee house were started in 2010 when Rivera, then Florida House budget chairman and running for Congress in Miami, failed to make mortgage payments for five months. The loan had been structured for interest-only payments on an adjustable rate mortgage until April 2010. Rubio and Rivera stopped paying the loan in February because of a dispute over how much the payments would be after April.

In June 2010, Deutsche Bank filed a lawsuit for $136,000, prompting Rivera to make a hasty payment for the missing months. Foreclosure proceedings were stopped.

Rivera later became entangled in ethics investigations and Rubio has kept some distance from him. They sold the house in June 2015 for $117,000.

It’s worth noting that the foreclosure proceedings didn’t proceed, but Rubio did "face" them on a second home.

"And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That's something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties." Rubio disclosed in May 2015 he had cashed out a tax-advantaged retirement account on Sept. 1, 2014, closing an American Bar Association account for the cash infusion.

"It was just one specific account that we wanted to have access to cash in the coming year, both because I'm running for president, but, also, you know, my refrigerator broke down. That was $3,000. I had to replace the air conditioning unit in our home," Rubio told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. "My kids all go to school, and they're getting closer to college and school is getting more expensive. And then when you're running for president, we just wanted to access the sum of that cash."

Because of the way most traditional IRAs are structured, Rubio was able to put money into the account without paying taxes. When he closed the account, by law he would have likely had to pay both income taxes and a 10 percent penalty, a move financial advisers usually do not recommend.

Taxes and penalties could have ranged from about $24,000 to as high as $30,000, but it’s unclear how much he paid.

Quick’s description here, too, is accurate.

Our ruling

Rubio said the premise of questions about his financial skills are "discredited attacks from Democrats and my political opponents."

He was responding to examples Quick gave when asking if he was prepared to oversee the nation’s economy as president. She listed troubles Rubio had experienced with campaign bookkeeping, foreclosure proceedings and liquidating an IRA at severe tax penalties.

All of these events happened and have been well-documented. It’s not accurate for Rubio to refer to the issues as "discredited," whether his opponents have used them to attack him or not. Quick was not making things up nor shading the facts.

We rate Rubio’s statement False.




source
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 05:22 pm
@revelette2,
Understood. But all candidates have weaknesses that can be exploited. The question is whether that exploitation will bear the sort of fruit desired. I have no confidence that line of attack will be terminal for him as candidate.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 09:03:37