Remember when a racist donated to Ron Paul, and they wouldn't let him live it down for not "refusing" the donation by "re-donating" it back to the racist, because then the racist would have new funds with which to further his racist agenda? That was the most moral reaction, because technically under the way the law is written, you cannot "refuse" the donation -- only give back a new equivalent amount.
Sanders received a donation from the guy who jacked up the price of an AIDS pill by 5k%, and then made a separate donation of other money from his campaign in the same amount to another organization, and then claimed to have "refused" the donation.
Does he honestly believe that we should plainly accept this word jugglery as passing as honest intellectual conversation? I wish someone with some intellectual fortitude would challenge and correct him that no, that is not refusing the donation -- that is accepting the donation, and gladly and kindly using that donation towards what you believe is a good cause. There is nothing "refusing" about it. It is an attempt to fool us with word jugglery, which means he is trying to fool us, which makes him unqualified to rule, in my eyes.
Sanders received a donation from the guy who jacked up the price of an AIDS pill by 5k%, and then made a separate donation of other money from his campaign in the same amount to another organization, and then claimed to have "refused" the donation.
Does he honestly believe that we should plainly accept this word jugglery as passing as honest intellectual conversation? I wish someone with some intellectual fortitude would challenge and correct him that no, that is not refusing the donation -- that is accepting the donation, and gladly and kindly using that donation towards what you believe is a good cause. There is nothing "refusing" about it. It is an attempt to fool us with word jugglery, which means he is trying to fool us, which makes him unqualified to rule, in my eyes.
Last edited:
