$100 million

#27
#27
Typically the big donors - especially on Wall Street - donate the most to who they think will win the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
therealUT said:
LG, why are you concerned with what an individual wants to do with his money?
Click to expand...

Are you not concerned that the voices of the few with all the money are able to shout down the voices of the masses who cannot match the financial advantage?
 
#29
#29
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Are you not concerned that the voices of the few with all the money are able to shout down the voices of the masses who cannot match the financial advantage?
Click to expand...

I am not greatly concerned by it; the voices of the few with money are going to do what they can to protect their money. If their money is safe from the government, then it is more likely to be reinvested in America.

I am more concerned that the masses have any voice in the Senate and the Executive.
 
#30
#30
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Are you not concerned that the voices of the few with all the money are able to shout down the voices of the masses who cannot match the financial advantage?
Click to expand...

Shout down the masses? Pretty sure the masses have said they want either Romney or Obama.

No way does Ron Paul's grass roots campaign take off without private financial contributions. If money isn't involved, we are still generally going to elect people from powerful families that the media likes.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
Doubtful.

But the fact is that Romney is being backed by a confederation of 1) gazillionaire fanatic conservatives who, while they don't really like Romney, are beside themselves over their blind hatred of Obama,
Click to expand...

One can be completely free of hatred and seeing quite clearly while taking a stance against Obama. In fact, it's pretty easy to do so.
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
That will not change anything with regard to campaign finance. If you want leaders that are not nearly as influenced by money, then fight to get rid of the popular vote for President and Senator, and fight for more Representatives in the House.

Sounds like you are for restricting the way individuals spend money so long as it serves the "greater good".
Click to expand...

I am not against more representatives.

But I am against restricting for the greater good. I will surely say this - if I were ever somehow in a position to run for senate or president, I would tell the RIAA, MPAA, Wall Street, and whatever other puppet-master string-pullers to shove it. It may cost me the election, but I would not be bought - call me a stupid idealist all you want, but I believe when in those offices, you should not be taking handouts. It's called public service for a reason.

hog88 said:
You could elect someone from the red pig party and it will not change. Why do you think these people fight so hard and spend so much money for a what $150,000/$175,000 job?

Term limits are the only fix IMHO.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree about term limits. I would also like to see senators/representative/other elected officials in DC be given the salary of the average teacher from the state from which they are elected. Again, politics should not be a rich man's game, it should be for the betterment of the country through service.
 
#33
#33
n_huffhines said:
Shout down the masses? Pretty sure the masses have said they want either Romney or Obama.

No way does Ron Paul's grass roots campaign take off without private financial contributions. If money isn't involved, we are still generally going to elect people from powerful families that the media likes.
Click to expand...

There's the problem. But I do see that eventually changing. The younger generation (under 30) is getting more and more of their news and information from the Internet instead of TV/radio. As this trend continues, 'free' services (Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Youtube, Skype, etc.) will help to bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots as far as campaign finance is concerned.

Personally, I do not listen/watch/believe any of the ads on TV - they are mostly dishonest mudslinging or generic, empty promises. The number of voters in the same category as me is much lower than that of older generations, but as that changes, eventually, so will the results.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
Doubtful.

But the fact is that Romney is being backed by a confederation of 1) gazillionaire fanatic conservatives who, while they don't really like Romney, are beside themselves over their blind hatred of Obama, and 2) financiers who worry that their ability to do insider deals without anyone knowing about it is on the chopping block.
Click to expand...

Blind hate? Wow, that's strong. I don't like Obama and hate the way he is running the country but it ain't a "blind" hate. Not sure where that one came from.
 
#36
#36
feigned outrage is feigned.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic candidates, especially Barack Obama, raked in major campaign donations from Wall Street, pulling in $71 million—$10 million more than Republicans. Obama himself counted Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and the Swiss banking giant UBS among his top donors.
Click to expand...

check the source, if anything this article treats Obama with the gentlest gloves.

Can Obama Win Back Wall Street's Campaign Donors? | Mother Jones
 
#37
#37
hndog609 said:
One can be completely free of hatred and seeing quite clearly while taking a stance against Obama. In fact, it's pretty easy to do so.
Click to expand...

To the tune of $100 million ???

LOL, I don't think it's just a wee little disagreement over policy that causes someone to pony up that kind of dough.
 
#40
#40
When Obama got massive donations from Wall Street and loaded his administration with WS donors? No problem.

When Obama massively out raised and out spent McCain? No problem.

When Obama backed out of public financing even though he promised not to? No problem.

When it was evident Obama would raise the biggest campaign fund in history for this election? No problem.

When Obama sets records for number of fundraisers? No problem.

When it starts to look like Romney may raise more money than Obama? IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#42
#42
volinbham said:
When Obama got massive donations from Wall Street and loaded his administration with WS donors? No problem.

When Obama massively out raised and out spent McCain? No problem.

When Obama backed out of public financing even though he promised not to? No problem.

When it was evident Obama would raise the biggest campaign fund in history for this election? No problem.

When Obama sets records for number of fundraisers? No problem.

When it starts to look like Romney may raise more money than Obama? IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

+1
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
When Obama got massive donations from Wall Street and loaded his administration with WS donors? No problem.

They both got tons. I don;t think Obama got more than him on the 9 to 1 basis we see this year. Throw in the unknown money in the super Pacs, which makes this look like peanuts, and any claim that what is going on now compares to some other year is preposterous.


When Obama massively out raised and out spent McCain? No problem.

See above.

When Obama backed out of public financing even though he promised not to? No problem.

I don't like public financing. I would agree that people can give as much as they want. I think it should have to be disclosed, including donations to super Pacs.

My complaint is not that they donate. My first complaint is that some can donate massively in secret. My second complaint -- more a criticism -- is that they expect something for this money.


When it was evident Obama would raise the biggest campaign fund in history for this election? No problem.

From where? And the vast majority disclosed.

When Obama sets records for number of fundraisers? No problem.

Publicly disclosed donations. No billionaires getting together in closed door meetings agreeing to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to super Pacs.

When it starts to look like Romney may raise more money than Obama? IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Nice confusing of apples and oranges.

Then again, that was your plan, wasn't it?
 
#46
#46
golfballs said:
Obama gets most of his money from special interests too.
Click to expand...


Theoretically every donation, even for $10 by some high school kid, is a "special interest."

Like I say, give as much as you want. Just make it public. Think the GOP will ever go along with a law to overcome CU?

Dream on. Dream on.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
To the tune of $100 million ???

LOL, I don't think it's just a wee little disagreement over policy that causes someone to pony up that kind of dough.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this reply that even remotely requires the person donating have hatred or sight issues, nevermind the fact what I quoted from you wasn't about any individual donor.

You've been oft accused of freely associating actions with what you believe to be their thoughts. You seem awfully comfortable in the arrogance of "knowing" why people do what they do.
 
#48
#48
no need to donate that kind of money to Obama when he's already hired your lobbyists
 
#49
#49
golfballs said:
Obama gets most of his money from special interests too.
Click to expand...

Plenty of billionaires in secret rooms funneling money to SuperPACs

10 to 1 or more ratios of public/private unions contributions.

Basically every type of source of money coming to Romney is coming to Obama.
 
#50
#50
hndog609 said:
There is nothing in this reply that even remotely requires the person donating have hatred or sight issues, nevermind the fact what I quoted from you wasn't about any individual donor.

You've been oft accused of freely associating actions with what you believe to be their thoughts. You seem awfully comfortable in the arrogance of "knowing" why people do what they do.
Click to expand...


I guess I apply common sense to such circumstances. If a guy is going to donate $100million to someone he didn't even support in the primary, I am going to apply common sense and figure out why.

I'd say top of the list is that he is part of this cadre of super wealthy people that personally can't stand Obama and have bought into the labels that the uber right talk show people have placed on him.

Next on the list would be that the donor is simply insane.

Much further down the list, so far down as to be out of sight, would be that he is a policy wonk who just wants what's best for the rest of us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top