Posted on 01/21/2016 5:27:24 PM PST by DrewsDad
“...The LINK TO THE CAMPAIGN is what he hoped to conceal - temporarily, until the election was over...”
To what end? What would he have gained by deliberately concealing a personal loan, from his own assets? Who would care? How would it be different from any other campaign that had loan(s)? And again, if he was so concerned about “concealing” it, he would not have left a big fat paper-trail with the senate filing. A paper-trail even the most Barney Fife clone of a “Police-Defective” could follow!
So clearly, you view this as high treason and/or think you have latched onto the “silver-bullet” issue to rid your candidate of the threat Cruz presents. All I can say is that opinions vary. Significantly. Being rational and reasonable, I honestly could not care any less that he took a personal loan from his own assets and used it for his campaign. I really don’t.
And I’m also glad I’m not a “defective” in your precinct. I doubt I could gain that much weight and lose enough of my work-ethic and still be functional...
Because as people have been saying all along, his wife's connection to Goldman Sachs is a big target on his back and he didn't want people to know her connections there were enabling that low-interest loan. It shouldn't matter, but in campaigns the appearance is the reality.
He misjudged. The omission of the loan on his FEC filing ended up being worse PR than a Goldman Sachs low-interest loan.
Someone wrote a very nice analysis of that aspect and I don't have time to try to find it now. Read the thread. He wanted to seem, the freeper wrote, to be the poor rube who emptied all his bank accounts and was up against an opponent who had much more money. Goldman Sachs sort of ruins that image.
The problem was breaking the law to do it. Not the loan itself. I believe he admitted only recently on TV that the money was definitely spent on the campaign.
I don't think I can bear to repeat myself again, so if any other Cruz fan wants to come aboard and willfully misinterpret reality, someone else will have to sweep up the mess.
“...Because as people have been saying all along, his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs is a big target on his back...”
Oh bull-butter! Goldman-Sachs was simply the bank where their personal account was deposited. It was a loan from their own asset account to themselves. It was no “gift” from the bank. I’ve taken a loan from my retirement account too - does that mean I’m a puppet of my bank?
The only folks who give a rats-patoot are the folks who want Cruz to go away because he is perceived as a threat to their preferred candidate. Every other rational observer understands that the money came from the Cruz’s personal asset account as a loan to himself, was not some secret gift from the bank, and he repaid the loans as agreed. And as for filing an amended FEC report, name any candidate in modern history who *has not* done so?
It’s a dead horse. No-one cares around here except (mostly) Trump fans who cling to it trying to whip-up controversy while hypocritically ignoring Trumps Goldman-Sachs loans that maybe he paid back... maybe he didn’t... Well, I keep forgetting, that’s *different*... Somehow. #CultOfPersonality
I said the problem was not the loans but the erroneous filing. Please stick to what I said if you are going to try to refute it. Otherwise you make it sound like I said the loans themselves were important. They are relevant only as backstory, to try to explain Cruz’s motivation. Thanks.
“...I said the problem was not the loans but the erroneous filing...”
And I’ve repeatedly mentioned that there is no candidate in modern history who also has not had to file amended FEC reports due to erroneous filing. It is not at all unusual to the point of being as reasonable and expected as filing an amended tax return is for a sizable chunk of tax payers (individuals *and* corps). By your standards, those taxpayers are all knowingly, willful dirty crooks. However, they would tend to disagree. Drastically! So I *am* sticking to what you said, you just don’t seem to understand how petty the complaint you raise appears to the casual onlooker. You think you’ve found an “Achilles Heel” for Cruz. I’m telling you that you haven’t. Simple as that.
Like I said, the *only* folks who give a hoot are (mostly) Trump fans and I doubt they would be doing it if they didn’t perceive Cruz as a threat. To most everyone else, it is not an unreasonable course of events. Now, Cruz *does* have actual policy issues that he can be attacked on and for whatever reason, Trump finds it easier to avoid responding to them intelligently and substantively and leans more on insults/invective. Beating this “personal loan filing” dead-horse just reinforces the crude, petty, “NYC-Values” image everyone has come to expect from the Trump camp. Is there any wonder why he has that high unlikeability rating yoked solidly around his neck?
This was not a tax filing, as you well know. It is the much more serious business of letting the voters know where your financing came from, as required by law.
“...It is the much more serious business of letting the voters know where your financing came from...”
Oh, I think most folks take taxes pretty dang serious and likely are *FAR* more concerned about them than a campaigning politician taking a personal loan, to himself, from his own personal assets. Seriously. Most understand he had zero to gain from concealing a personal loan from his own personal assets. If it had been a sneaky gift from the bank, you would have reason to shout “scandal”. But it wasn’t. It was a personal loan, to himself, from his own personal assets. How doe the bank influence him with his own assets? What say-so does the bank even *have* in that situation? Let me say that again in case it still hasn’t sunk in: It was a personal loan, to himself, from his own personal assets, that he repaid in full - not a sneaky quid-pro-quo gift from some nefarious cartel. No one cares, except mostly Trump supporters who apparently see Cruz as a threat. The same folks who (curiously) have zero problem with Trump taking bigger loans from the same banks and (arguably) weaseling out of repaying them.
“...as required by law...”
So you are saying - amended taxes “are not” somehow required by law? Huh? Complex regulations are the bane of folks interacting with govt — campaigning politicians included. Amended filings for *any* report to govt (taxes, manufacturing, education, elections, etc) are reasonable and expected to most anyone who has to deal with them — unless you are Trump apparently. Has Trump ever concealed taxes/income and had to file any amended reports? Has he “hidden” behind the skirts of some corporation to “shield” his activities from “the sunshine”? Do you see how silly the complaint becomes? I don’t even care about Trumps amended filings, which we can reasonably presume are voluminous and occur quarterly. But I also don’t care to hold him to a different standard than anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.