Oh wow, you said it. What a hell of a week - Yeehaw!!!
Posted on 09/15/2016 5:02:33 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
“Sock it to MEEEE???” (Nixon on ‘Laugh-In’ - Hillary this week)
I haven’t read the full article yet.
Is this something to do with monthly donations?
Like maybe on the donation webpage ‘donate monthly’ is already checked off and some folks are caught unawares??
The article makes it sound like the bank refunds the money, as if the money comes out of the bank’s pocket. Doubtful. Wouldn’t the report of an unauthorized charge result in a chargeback to Hillary’s campaign?
Chargebacks come with fees too.
Really, they’re funding to try to have our money stolen by Hillary—and somehow they don’t like the friendly fire of her doing it to them?
Oh wow, you said it. What a hell of a week - Yeehaw!!!
Yeah.
You are right, there.
Nixon would have done a lot better if he were a better salesman. Instead he was a manager/wonk type. Not a sympathetic character to most folks.
No, as one victim’s son, a lawyer put it, if it was a monthly there wouldn’t have been multiple charges for different amounts on different or the same day.
This story should never have seen the light of day, or if it did, safely after the election.
The fact that we are seeing it now is an indication that the Clinton campaign is losing it’s grip. People are starting to look around and see that sucking up to Hillary might no longer be the best long-term play.
Once it becomes clear that Hillary Clinton will not be the Next President of the United States, all Hell is going to break loose. People are going to desert her in droves, because the hope of future power is the only thing that tied them to her in the first place.
This is just a test run for a Hillary presidency. The poor saps who vote for her think that they will be getting all kinds of government handouts paid for by the “rich,” and then they’ll find out that they are the ones getting charged while Hillary’s rich cronies get even richer based on their government relationships.
No. Charges are posted at uneven intervals, sometimes on the same day and for different amounts. Total amounts are always just under $100, which is the threshold amount that triggers an investigation by the card issuer.
It sounds like the banks do refund the money. If they don't then do a chargeback to the Clinton campaign, then that would mean they just eat the money. Which maybe they do. Could this be a back-door strategy to collect donations from major cc companies without having them LOOK like donations?
Good question. That would be something. With a business transaction, if the customer disputes a charge, it is automatically charged back to the business. There is no threshold amount. It can be as little as $5. The only 'investigation' that is done is if the business pursues it through their CC processor to demonstrate that it was a legitimate charge.
NOT surprised.
Hillary for President, but hook or by crook.
Great way to lose support, isn’t it?
Screw your most loyal supporters, the very ones who are willing to support you with their money.
Never give a sucker an even break.
Bump
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.