▲ 343 ▼ Green Party candidate Cornel West owes more than half a million dollars in taxes and child support: Records (abcnews.go.com) submitted 3 years ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 244 comments fedilink hide all child comments ABCnews
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) so what was the point of the comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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)_/¯ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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)_/¯ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent