U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:06 AM
 
7,352 posts, read 5,271,022 times
Reputation: 1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
Unbelievable... this email was sent out by Obama's campaign on 10/30... so the $600 million raised so far is not enough to guarantee buying the presidency? And ~$3 million spent on that cheesy infomercial and another $2 million for his planned election night rally. Why so much for an election night rally? Especially if he and his staff are already working on the PR for downgrading the public's expectations of his administration? How can anyone think that Obama can be trusted to manage our country's budget and future? He's sure good at blowing through big chunks of money, that's for sure.
What's the problem? How do you think his campaign got funded?

It's called "democracy." You know, where people participate in making things happen for themselves and their country. "Bottom-up" political work is the official phrase.

If it were McCain, we wouldn't hear a peep out of you. Unfortunately, McCain couldn't run a campaign if his life depended on it. And has, in fact, run the worst campaign in decades. Guess if he had decided to work WITH his supporters, rather than ABOVE them--or a "Top-Down" approach-- and had run a clean campaign, things might look much different now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:07 AM
 
7,352 posts, read 5,271,022 times
Reputation: 1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by person View Post
Leave nothing to chance. Another example of top notch campaign management.
Yep. If we want to know which candidate is better at management, I think the answer is abundantly clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:09 AM
Status: "We're Watching You" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Mississippi
6,291 posts, read 6,968,210 times
Reputation: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
You just wasted $250.

If you don't need Barack's $500, you should give it back to help reduce the deficit. You won't.

Some idealist you are.
Actually, I was thinking of driving into that really ritzy neighborhood a few miles from my house where a lot of the corporate CEO's live and dropping a check for $250 dollars in their mailbox. The way I figure it, if all of us gave them $250 dollars, eventually what would happen is they will find a way for that money to trickle back down to us. Nevermind that the return on our initial investment may actually be lower but it'll trickle down nonetheless. So, then what'll happen is when I get my $50 that's been trickled down to me, I'll have more money to go out and buy things from said CEO's company. Yeah! I like that! It makes so much more sense!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,067 posts, read 9,442,751 times
Reputation: 3428
People need to wake up. Obama had something like $600 million for this general election campaign; McCain had $84 million. And B.O.'s campaign is crying poverty and saying they're "over-stretched" because McCain ran a couple of ads????? And for all of the money Obama has spent on his campaign, you'd think he'd be AT LEAST 15 points up!

And idiots want to put this man and his machine into the White House to handle the NATION'S money? Good God. If it isn't clear by how they've managed to run through $600 million so quickly that they're big-spenders and poor managers, I don't know what else will convince.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:13 AM
 
1,536 posts, read 1,041,598 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoppingCartLaw View Post
Obama will milk people of their money even the poor people.

I'll let a conservative explain it to you:

"Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. The public has always disliked it: Voluntary and cost-free participation, using the check-off on the income tax form, peaked at 28.7 percent in 1980 and has sagged to 9.2 percent. The Post, which is melancholy about the system's parlous condition, says there were three reasons for creating public financing: to free candidates from the demands of fundraising, to level the playing field and "to limit the amount of money pouring into presidential campaigns." The first reason is decreasingly persuasive because fundraising is increasingly easy because of new technologies such as the Internet. The second reason is, the Supreme Court says, constitutionally impermissible. Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support. As for the third reason -- "huge amounts" (McCain) of money "pouring into" (The Post) presidential politics -- well:

The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips."

George Will

George F. Will - Call Him John the Careless - washingtonpost.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:17 AM
 
13,200 posts, read 5,803,345 times
Reputation: 4431
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
People need to wake up. Obama had something like $600 million for this general election campaign; McCain had $84 million. And B.O.'s campaign is crying poverty and saying they're "over-stretched" because McCain ran a couple of ads????? And for all of the money Obama has spent on his campaign, you'd think he'd be AT LEAST 15 points up!

And idiots want to put this man and his machine into the White House to handle the NATION'S money? Good God. If it isn't clear by how they've managed to run through $600 million so quickly that they're big-spenders and poor managers, I don't know what else will convince.

You've got your facts wrong AGAIN. What a SURPRISE!

You're comparing Obama's total campaign contributions to date to McCain's payment from the Federal Government for only the last two Months.

You're shameless. You cannot get the most simple of facts straight. Your like the poster child for a GOP base voter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:18 AM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,377,877 times
Reputation: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
People need to wake up. Obama had something like $600 million for this general election campaign; McCain had $84 million. And B.O.'s campaign is crying poverty and saying they're "over-stretched" because McCain ran a couple of ads????? And for all of the money Obama has spent on his campaign, you'd think he'd be AT LEAST 15 points up!

And idiots want to put this man and his machine into the White House to handle the NATION'S money? Good God. If it isn't clear by how they've managed to run through $600 million so quickly that they're big-spenders and poor managers, I don't know what else will convince.
The Party's money doesn't count? Ignorant or purposely misleading?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,067 posts, read 9,442,751 times
Reputation: 3428
Skirting the real issues, eh, Obamaphiles???? Oh, gee, is Obama's money advantage more like 4-1 instead of 7-1??? And he can't make do, so he continues to whine and beg? And you do realize that even Chicago's mayor recommended that he scale down the lavish election night shindig he's planned but he refused? Everyone seems to see the problem except for you.

But if it's the taxpayers' money he fritters away in this style, then maybe you'll wake up. Too late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 02:07 AM
 
Location: DC area
1,516 posts, read 1,338,249 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Skirting the real issues, eh, Obamaphiles???? Oh, gee, is Obama's money advantage more like 4-1 instead of 7-1??? And he can't make do, so he continues to whine and beg? And you do realize that even Chicago's mayor recommended that he scale down the lavish election night shindig he's planned but he refused? Everyone seems to see the problem except for you.

But if it's the taxpayers' money he fritters away in this style, then maybe you'll wake up. Too late.
Genius, you called into question the difference between the two's funding. Others then called you on it because what you stated as facts were lies.

You got your hand smacked. They were right. It's not then skirting the issue just because you don't like that you got caught telling tales out of turn again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-01-2008, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
9,847 posts, read 7,895,349 times
Reputation: 11030
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
Unbelievable... this email was sent out by Obama's campaign on 10/30... so the $600 million raised so far is not enough to guarantee buying the presidency? And ~$3 million spent on that cheesy infomercial and another $2 million for his planned election night rally. Why so much for an election night rally? Especially if he and his staff are already working on the PR for downgrading the public's expectations of his administration? How can anyone think that Obama can be trusted to manage our country's budget and future? He's sure good at blowing through big chunks of money, that's for sure.
Generous donation from me recently. YES WE CAN!

Get over it! Hillary lost, and even your vote for losing McCain can't remedy those SOUR GRAPES!

That's President Obama to you...and don't you forget it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $47,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 PM.

© 2005-2013, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - Top