-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Senator Claire McCaskill's Vacation Home Is the Problem With America's Ruling Class
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
Do you want to tell me what it actually has to do with? And by actually, I mean something concrete. Has Mccaskill actually received bribes that have swayed her votes towards the sinister in exchange for cash? These aren't secrets so we should be able to get concrete proof of said votes the same way we got concrete proof of said donations?
Or is this a scenario where merely knowing the people you are responsible for regulating is seen as some unbelievable sin that shouldn't be allowed.
Right now it sounds like the latter tbh. It sounds like the fake woke numbskulls see that 'powerful' people know each other, and thus corruption must be afoot, so the suggestion is taken as fact until someone gets their ass on stage in front of an entire nation and asks for a SINGLE INSTANCE of money influencing a vote/decision which is followed by the most abrupt and uncomfortable silence ever...
But maybe that's not it. Maybe you have the goods. Lets see them. Mccaskill is better than the worst but Im not married to her, and I live in the area she represents; so if there is more on her already imperfect record, then let it fly. But Im not down for the goosechase bullshit.
The lakefront vacation property in Missouri where McCaskill goes to escape the partisan chaos of Capitol Hill is owned by her husband, Joseph Shepard, and Rick DeStefane a close family friend, a regular campaign donor, and a nursing home executive with a track record of serious safety problems in an industry the senator has vowed to clean up.
^^^
The issue is that the property is co-owned by her husband and a campaign donor who works in an industry she has oversight of.
Those are conflicts.
^^^
The issue is that the property is co-owned by her husband and a campaign donor who works in an industry she has oversight of.
Those are conflicts.
So, what did McCaskill do that would suggest she's not following through on her promise to clean up the industry because of her personal connection?
Those are theoretical conflicts. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part. In fact, the federal investigations into DeStefane's company kinda show she hasn't used her influence inappropriately.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
OOOOOOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Someone spun a story out of McCaskill drinking a watermelon mojito and some extremely smallfry donations and turned it into populist tirade against the excesses of Washington. Yawn.
Does not matter.
If you have conflicts, you should get rid of them. It's not enough that the public should just "trust" their representatives.
You have to tell me why people should be able to decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis if a conflict is something that they should be able to ignore.
Anyone can say that this person they own real-estate with in an industry they have oversight of will not be effected by their mutual financial interest, but that's bullshit. What if there's a divorce, an illness, a fire, and now the property is the subject of a legal battle? You can't see the future. It's entitlement and hubris, and absolutely insane.
I don't fully understand from the article, but if it literally a property with her husband's name, and her campaign donor's name on the deed, that's a big conflict.
So the real issue here is that McCaskill has Instagram?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
There's an actual Senator on actual trial right now for allegedly taking bribes. That seems more tangible than whatever the hell this is.
This all seems very tenuous to me. Innuendo, close relationships with donors, but no evidence of corruption.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Yea, but McCaskill is a woman. So it's worse. Don't ask me how.
This is McCaskill's private email server moment.
Fenderputty
Banned
The far left was such a mistake, holy fuck
You simply can't get into the role of a US senator or a even the house without being substantially wealthy.
DraconisNav
Banned
I read the article. I'm confused as to whether you did. Here's what I saw:
And then, even with all that power, here's what happened to the friend that had "obviously" been corrupting the Senator.
So basically you have to be a monk to be a politician.
Your standard is obscenely high. Her husband bought a house with this guy before he even knew her. This is a non story.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I think it's more about McCaskill being up for election in a flippable state that would push the GOP majority up a seat.
Yes it fucking does.....
Yes.... it fucking DOES matter.
Jesus fucking Christ.... Actual wrongdoing matters. It's completely different from hypothetical wrong doing. One of those has merit and means something to anyone with common sense. The other, is you playing fucking Minority Report IRL. It's not the same dude.
Im starting to notice a pattern. A bunch of people who don't care much for the substance and meat of things. Only the surface level and first impression level of things.
To hell with whether or not so and so actually took bribes; She has known powerful people for a long time and there COULD be corruption there.
To hell with whether the bill we present has actual detailed nuance for how it would be paid for and executed. Just look at how awesome is SOUNDS. It really gives the APPEARANCE of something great even if its hollow on the inside.
To hell with whether McCaskill is ACTUALLY corrupt and selling votes for 5k campaign contributions and donations. Her knowing this guy mean its possible, so actual wrong doing isn't really necessary, its okay to assume!
She kicked the Republicans ass in 2012 and they never got over it. They thought they had her dead and buried when their GOP candidate couldn't stop going on about Rape If I recall correctly. And McCaskill won it anyway. They are absolutely livid. So its really no surprise they have identified that the fringe far left is their best friend and put this vague shit out as red meat for these lunatics.
If conflicts come up, she would need to recuse herself.
So far, I'm not seeing where that would be needed, since this case was handled by the justice department and not the senate.
The most you can attack her for here is having a shady family friend.
Of course not. That doesn't mean I can't speak out against practices like this.
I swear some of you people are so ridiculous.
Her husband co-owns a vacation home with a close family friend who donates to her campaign.
And this is somehow supposed to be something that people gives a shit about?
I think there might be more important things to worry about than a vacation home. Like making sure that a fucking Republican doesn't take her Senate seat.
Her husband co-owns a vacation home with a close family friend who donates to her campaign.
And this is somehow supposed to be something that people gives a shit about?
I think there might be more important things to worry about than a vacation home. Like making sure that a fucking Republican doesn't take her Senate seat.
Earthbound64
Banned
I was expecting this topic/article to just be "rich senator is rich, people need to stop being rich."
But:
Well then...
But:
Well then...
Watermelon mojitos are just a more subtle evil.
Incredible some of the mental gymnastics in this thread.
Who is saying primary her? That doesn't mean this shouldn't be examined or at least she should take furth conflict mitigating steps.
You mitigate conflicts AHEAD of potential abuse, I fundamentally don't understand the "well she hasn't abused this yet" reasoning herein.
This isn't a big deal, but there isn't anything more frustrating that people saying we can't criticize our elected officials when clearly there is room for improvement here.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
So many people don't vote because they're morons that buy into nonsense like this.
Well all you have to do is prove that Claire McCaskill, in exchange for a $5400 donation, used her influence to have the Justice Department give the guy a deal.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Yeah NM.
Politicians know people. It's absolutely normal to have potential conflicts. That's why we have the recusal system.
If this guy came up in her senate dealings, I expect she would recuse herself as would be appropriate. If you have evidence that she hasn't, then we can talk.
The fact that she has vowed to clean up the nursing home industry, despite knowing a corrupt individual in said industry, means that she's doing a good job of not letting the relationship affect her work.
Earthbound64
Banned
Or, I could question that guy getting away with all that stuff, and figure out how he was allowed to get away with all of it.
He...didn't get away with it?
But knowing that would require the ability to read. It seems to be a really high bar
What did he get away with?
Earthbound64
Banned
So, what happened that resulted in him "not getting away with" 6+ years of fraud and patient abuse? All things are peachy-keen now? All the people are taken care of? etc. Surely it must have destroyed him, no?
Not to mention, you know:
What happened with that? Deaths alright now too?
Cute.
Fenderputty
Banned
And a bit o mint. Can't forget the mint.
I personally like my mojito with light simple syrup giving it a more clean citrus mint flavor. Or no stupid. Lol
Earthbound64
Banned
Right - and that seems paltry in comparison with what should have happened.
That's the point - softened blows and sweetheart deals, as opposed to issues actually being addressed.
Under what basis are you making that assumption? What do you know about the evidence, the case law, the investigation? That settlement seems to be just for the Medicaid issues, not the other ones. They will have their own settlement or day in court.
You are jumping to a conclusion you have no factual basis for.
She's not exactly a liberal darling. She's a Dem senator in a conservative state
I understand why this is something you'd prefer not to see out of our elected officials but honestly this is nothing compared to Republicans. At least she is inclined to legislate sensibly, like rational human beings do and not theocratic loons
I understand why this is something you'd prefer not to see out of our elected officials but honestly this is nothing compared to Republicans. At least she is inclined to legislate sensibly, like rational human beings do and not theocratic loons