343
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

ABCnews

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago

As bad as that debt is, it would be worse if it just up and mysteriously disappeared one day.

I hope folks are watching it like hawks.

I like Doctor West as a person, he's a fascinating guy, and a great speaker, but nobody in that much debt should be anywhere near elected office.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I work in the finance/baking sector. I literally couldn't get a job like this. Every bank or financial institutions HR departments would disqualify you on a background check.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

he's not applying for your job

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ya, but the entire reason I wouldn't be able to get a job is they view you as too vulnurable to manipulation and bribery. Sounds like things you want to avoid in a president or any political office holder...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I trust cornel west mare than any politician I've seen this cycle

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

For president? I guess it's geriatric number 1 who isn't getting anything I want done. Geriatric sideshow clown who will grift as much as he can while letting his party fuck us, or possibly one of his disciples. Being better than a huge steaming load of dog poo isn't really much to brag about. Thus is the state of American politics.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I can't tell which side is which in your description

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago
[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If the debt up and mysteriously disappeared it would mean persons unknown paid it.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

but you think you know who it is.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If the debt mysteriously vanished? No way to know unless you subpoened the banks or something.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

so what was the point of the comment?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The point is any political candidate with massive debt needs to have their finances watched carefully just in case that debt disappears.

Then there needs to be an investigation into who, exactly, just bought that candidate.

See:

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-supreme-court-judge-brett-kavanaughs-100k-debt-disappear-1785043

"In 2016, Kavanaugh reported in a financial disclosure owing between $60,004 and $200,000 in credit card and loan debt. But, as reported by Mother Jones, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court that debt had gone."

Who paid it? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

but the biden/obama/clinton/pelosi/schiff family wealth needs no investigation?

it's not just debts. it's any money.

maybe i'm naive, but i don't believe you could buy cornel west. i would doubt mysef if he wins the green nomination, drops out, and backs biden. i don't know anything else that might shake my faith is his character.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

meh. i don't think it's worth the energy of even saying "there ought to be an investigation" of any of them, myself. i'm saying that you're looking at the wrong person to start hunting out corruption.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

i think we should start with anyone in public office, pretty much endlessly. let's root out corruption where it has actually taken place, not where it MIGHT.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, definitely, the problem with that, as we're seeing with the Supreme Court, it's the people in power who are deciding the rules.

Now we could make a change with some form of anti-corruption constitutional amendment, but that requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and we can't even get 60 votes to break a filibuster much less the 67 needed for an amendment.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
343 points (90.0% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3720 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS