That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
WrongTheMix wrote:There is also another aspect... he gets to pocket any funds that are left, right? So if he believes that he is going to lose anyway, why spend a bunch of money that he can keep for himself?
As Bob Biersack from the Federal Election Commission points out, most candidates don’t have much left over to begin with. Campaigning is expensive, and “leftover” money gets used for bills and debts first, including expenses incurred while winding down an abandoned campaign or a lost political office.
Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they’re incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office — including presidential candidates — must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5000 – but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.
What candidates can’t do with leftover money is use it for personal expenses. Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever — but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.
When you have a charity that you use as your personal checkbook...They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party.
Angry their national organization refused to endorse Donald Trump for president, LGBTQ Log Cabin Republicans of Miami on Monday announced their full support for the 2016 GOP nominee.
Given that the FEC is evenly split with Obama 's appointments held up and they couldn't find Gingrich guilty of obviously comingling funds, he probably can get away with it.Isgrimnur wrote:WrongTheMix wrote:There is also another aspect... he gets to pocket any funds that are left, right? So if he believes that he is going to lose anyway, why spend a bunch of money that he can keep for himself?
As Bob Biersack from the Federal Election Commission points out, most candidates don’t have much left over to begin with. Campaigning is expensive, and “leftover” money gets used for bills and debts first, including expenses incurred while winding down an abandoned campaign or a lost political office.
Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they’re incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office — including presidential candidates — must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5000 – but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.
What candidates can’t do with leftover money is use it for personal expenses. Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever — but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.
I would think the best solution for that issue would be to only allow canceling your early vote and then allowing you to vote in person on election day.gilraen wrote:At a rally in Wisconsin, Trump just called on people who cast early ballots to "cancel their ballots" and cast new votes for Trump. Apparently it's legal in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Really hard to imagine a material number of people doing this who weren't already committed Trump voters.gilraen wrote:At a rally in Wisconsin, Trump just called on people who cast early ballots to "cancel their ballots" and cast new votes for Trump. Apparently it's legal in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
All 20 members apparently.Isgrimnur wrote:Of Miami:
Angry their national organization refused to endorse Donald Trump for president, LGBTQ Log Cabin Republicans of Miami on Monday announced their full support for the 2016 GOP nominee.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought he was suggesting this on order to possibly get twice as many Trump votes if the system failed to "keep up".El Guapo wrote:Really hard to imagine a material number of people doing this who weren't already committed Trump voters.gilraen wrote:At a rally in Wisconsin, Trump just called on people who cast early ballots to "cancel their ballots" and cast new votes for Trump. Apparently it's legal in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
This isn't the first time you've tried downplaying potentially horrendous rape cases involving children by blaming the parents. No matter what the parents do, the act itself is never freakin' justified.Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
Of course not, and I do believe the justice system has already prosecuted the perpetrator here. No w it is nothing but attempts to cash in. If she wanted justice against anyone else there have been many years to go after them.hepcat wrote:This isn't the first time you've tried downplaying potentially horrendous rape cases involving children by blaming the parents. No matter what the parents do, the act itself is never freakin' justified.Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
Rip wrote:Of course not, and I do believe the justice system has already prosecuted the perpetrator here. No w it is nothing but attempts to cash in. If she wanted justice against anyone else there have been many years to go after them.hepcat wrote:This isn't the first time you've tried downplaying potentially horrendous rape cases involving children by blaming the parents. No matter what the parents do, the act itself is never freakin' justified.Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
Can't use the good old "she was afraid" justification because she had already seen justice handed out to a rich powerful person who flew an ex-POTUS around on his jet. No reason for this circus other than to get paid.
If there is credible evidence...they should have been prosecuted years ago, the fact the haven't suggests there is no credible evidence.
Out of curiosity, since the woman hasn't been named, how do you know it's the same one?Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
edit: Oh nevermind it is the girl that Dershowitz has already beaten in court.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... itz-205121
Who could this paragraph possibly refer to?In the campaign that followed, he criss-crossed the county in an airplane, descending from the clouds into the arms of growing numbers of fanatics at ever-larger rallies. He gave them a positive message, promising something for everyone...then ascended back into the clouds.
Did you pay for them? Because Trump sure as hell didn't. He had other people pay. That makes him smart.Rip wrote:Enjoy the Trump ads during the WS tonight.
Are you even sure they've been paid for? Unless the network demanded prepayment. That would make it smart.killbot737 wrote:Did you pay for them? Because Trump sure as hell didn't. He had other people pay. That makes him smart.Rip wrote:Enjoy the Trump ads during the WS tonight.
Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
Bill Maher has likewise bloomed in this bloody loam.tgb wrote:Olbermann's been in rare form this campaign. He's definitely not holding back.
So it is okay to rape a 13 years old if her parents let her run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
No it isn't ok, but it also isn't ok for a 13 year old to be exposed to such a situation. Either way evidence and decisions about what happened and who is responsible belong in the courtroom.Victoria Raverna wrote:So it is okay to rape a 13 years old if her parents let her run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
Kinda like when victim of rape being blamed for not wearing a burka.
A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... pe-lawsuitThe Guardian investigation found that a publicist calling himself “Al Taylor” attempted to sell the videotape of “Jane Doe” relating her allegations for $1m. It linked Taylor through a variety of means including shared email addresses and phone numbers to Norm Lubow, who used to work on Springer’s daytime talk show.
Lubow was connected to a contentious claim, raised in the 1998 documentary movie Kurt and Courtney, that Courtney Love offered a fellow musician $50,000 to murder her husband, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. Love denied the charge.
According to the New York Post, Lubow was also behind a tabloid newspaper story that OJ Simpson bought illicit drugs on the day his estranged wife Nicole Brown was killed.
When the Guardian quizzed “Al Taylor” about his true identity, the publicist replied: “Just be warned, we’ll sue you if we don’t like what you write. We’ll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper’s ass as well, punk.”
I paid for them, I'm hoping to get it back at tax time. If Trump wins, that might make me smart.killbot737 wrote:Did you pay for them? Because Trump sure as hell didn't. He had other people pay. That makes him smart.Rip wrote:Enjoy the Trump ads during the WS tonight.
It's in the letter- Jane DoeFitzy wrote:Out of curiosity, since the woman hasn't been named, how do you know it's the same one?Rip wrote:So who let's their 13 year old run around unmonitored at parties with grown men?
edit: Oh nevermind it is the girl that Dershowitz has already beaten in court.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... itz-205121
Because she "had received threats and was too scared to come forward."
So she changed her name from Jane Doe?Oh and her name is Katie Johnson, just look at the California lawsuit.
Little late no? She has already come forward and everyone knows who she is.Defiant wrote:Because she "had received threats and was too scared to come forward."
So she changed her name from Jane Doe?Oh and her name is Katie Johnson, just look at the California lawsuit.
