ABCnews

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  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.

                  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    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.